Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (Apr 2017)

Unimodal Versus Bimodal EEG-fMRI Neurofeedback of a Motor Imagery Task

  • Lorraine Perronnet,
  • Lorraine Perronnet,
  • Lorraine Perronnet,
  • Lorraine Perronnet,
  • Lorraine Perronnet,
  • Anatole Lécuyer,
  • Anatole Lécuyer,
  • Marsel Mano,
  • Marsel Mano,
  • Marsel Mano,
  • Marsel Mano,
  • Marsel Mano,
  • Elise Bannier,
  • Elise Bannier,
  • Elise Bannier,
  • Elise Bannier,
  • Elise Bannier,
  • Fabien Lotte,
  • Fabien Lotte,
  • Maureen Clerc,
  • Maureen Clerc,
  • Christian Barillot,
  • Christian Barillot,
  • Christian Barillot,
  • Christian Barillot

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00193
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

Neurofeedback is a promising tool for brain rehabilitation and peak performance training. Neurofeedback approaches usually rely on a single brain imaging modality such as EEG or fMRI. Combining these modalities for neurofeedback training could allow to provide richer information to the subject and could thus enable him/her to achieve faster and more specific self-regulation. Yet unimodal and multimodal neurofeedback have never been compared before. In the present work, we introduce a simultaneous EEG-fMRI experimental protocol in which participants performed a motor-imagery task in unimodal and bimodal NF conditions. With this protocol we were able to compare for the first time the effects of unimodal EEG-neurofeedback and fMRI-neurofeedback versus bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback by looking both at EEG and fMRI activations. We also propose a new feedback metaphor for bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback that integrates both EEG and fMRI signal in a single bi-dimensional feedback (a ball moving in 2D). Such a feedback is intended to relieve the cognitive load of the subject by presenting the bimodal neurofeedback task as a single regulation task instead of two. Additionally, this integrated feedback metaphor gives flexibility on defining a bimodal neurofeedback target. Participants were able to regulate activity in their motor regions in all NF conditions. Moreover, motor activations as revealed by offline fMRI analysis were stronger during EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback than during EEG-neurofeedback. This result suggests that EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback could be more specific or more engaging than EEG-neurofeedback. Our results also suggest that during EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback, participants tended to regulate more the modality that was harder to control. Taken together our results shed first light on the specific mechanisms of bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback and on its added-value as compared to unimodal EEG-neurofeedback and fMRI-neurofeedback.

Keywords