Back

The hedonic evaluation of neurofeedback stimuli is fast, automatic and implicit: An ERP study on stimulus design.

Naas, A.; Cai, D.; Shabestari, P. S.; Kleinjung, T.; Ribes Lemay, D.; Neff, P.; Sonderegger, A.

2026-06-10 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.06.730592 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction - Neurofeedback (NFB) has demonstrated efficacy in treating various disorders, often achieving substantial symptom reductions. Despite its effectiveness, a significant percentage of users (non-responders), fail to benefit from NFB. Addressing this issue, the study at hand investigates the role of NFB design on neuro-physiological responses. Method - event related potentials (ERPs) are examined in response to the application of different aesthetic principles in the context of NFB stimulus design. Drawing from Self-Determination Theory and ERP studies in the field of web design, 16 feedback stimuli were developed according to specific design principles. Stimulus design effects were inspected by means of ERPs allowing for the assessment of implicit and fast electroencephalogram (EEG) reactions. Results of n = 38 participants indicated distinct ERP response patterns at time window of interest 1 (TWOI-1; 100-200 ms) and TWOI-2 (200-300 ms), predicted by beholder-based liking and complexity of stimuli. The findings align with the proposed hypotheses suggesting that aesthetic evaluation of NFB stimuli occurs rapidly and implicitly. In response to the aesthetic vs. non-aesthetic categories, the findings were mixed. The results underscore the importance of further exploration of aesthetic design guidelines in the context of NFB applications. It is discussed how NFB aesthetics relate to Processing Fluency and Affective Prediction Error Theory, while the theoretical methodological issue of the Fixed Effect Fallacy is taken into consideration. The study contributes to the broader understanding of how design elements can affect therapeutic efficacy and engagement in NFB and Human Computer Interaction in therapeutic contexts in general.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.8%
2
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
3
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 18%
5.2%
6
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
7
International Journal of Psychophysiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
9
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
10
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
12
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
13
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
14
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
15
Neuroscience of Consciousness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
19
Biological Psychology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
20
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
22
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
23
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
24
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Brain Stimulation
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Consciousness and Cognition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
27
BJPsych Open
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
28
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
29
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%