Spatially bivariate EEG-neurofeedback can manipulate interhemispheric inhibition

Projection neurons wire the brain over long distances and provide a network between different brain regions. In particular, both hemispheres are structurally connected by transcallosal projections and exhibit functional cross talks (Hofer and Frahm, 2006; Meyer et al., 1995); such interhemispheric interaction is essential for higher order cognitive and sensorimotor brain functions. An early argument for interhemispheric interaction was that dynamic interplay via the callosum not only allows for simple coordination of processing between the hemispheres but also has profound effects on attentional functioning (Banich, 1998). In the motor domain, neurons in the monkey primary motor cortex are firing bilaterally and motor signals from the two hemispheres interact during unimanual motor tasks (Ames and Churchland, 2019); in the human motor cortex, measuring these neural activities via electroencephalography (EEG) and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) recently revealed that the two hemispheres act together and the related cortical oscillatory activity influences the inhibitory interhemispheric brain network (Picazio et al., 2014; Stefanou et al., 2018).

A critical issue is whether a specific interhemispheric activity can be volitionally controlled. Previous studies have focused on inhibitory interhemispheric sensorimotor network, evaluated by interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), from movement-related manner (Duque et al., 2007; Duque et al., 2005; Liang et al., 2014; Morishita et al., 2012; Murase et al., 2004; Nelson et al., 2009), and passive neuromodulation effects by non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive TMS (rTMS) (Boddington and Reynolds, 2017; Gilio et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2010). Due to the experimental limitations related to these observational or open-loop paradigms, much less is known about the effects of changes in sensorimotor activity patterns in both hemispheres on IHI, and the possibility of manipulating IHI. Therefore, the closed-loop paradigms to manipulate bilateral sensorimotor activity patterns and IHI should be of great value for the understanding of human sensorimotor brain function (Figure 1A).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

As a recent neural manipulative tool, numerous studies have used a brain-computer interface (BCI)-based neurofeedback whereby participants learn to volitionally desynchronize and synchronize oscillatory sensorimotor rhythms (SMR-ERD/ERS) in the contralateral sensorimotor cortex (SM1) through visual and/or somatosensory feedback (Ang and Guan, 2017; Chaudhary et al., 2016; Ramos-Murguialday et al., 2013; Soekadar et al., 2015b). BCI-based neurofeedback is supported by the fact that the intensity of SMR-ERD in EEG represents states of high versus low excitability of not only the SM1 (Neuper et al., 2006; Neuper and Pfurtscheller, 2001; Pfurtscheller et al., 2006), but also the corticospinal descending pathway, as measured by the motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude (Takemi et al., 2015; Takemi et al., 2013). Because both hemispheres are structurally and functionally connected, it is likely that the balance of bilateral SMR-ERDs and transcallosal excitability states are linked, as indicated by common variation of conditioning MEP amplitude and IHI (Ferbert et al., 1992; Ghosh et al., 2013; Ni et al., 2009).

Here, we sought to investigate the association of IHI and the balance of SMR-ERDs to understand the inhibitory sensorimotor functions of interhemispheric interaction that may critically depend on the oscillatory brain activity in both hemispheres. Furthermore, if changes in the oscillatory brain activity influenced IHI, we tested whether it can be manipulated using a dual-coil paired-pulse TMS protocol (Daskalakis et al., 2002; Ferbert et al., 1992). To assess the association of IHI with ongoing oscillatory brain activity, we used a recently developed spatially bivariate BCI-based neurofeedback technique that allows volitional modulation of SMR amplitude in both hemispheres (Hayashi et al., 2021; Hayashi et al., 2020) and triggers the TMS pulses in real time at predetermined bilateral SMR amplitudes. Our system, therefore, overcomes previously unresolved experimental limitations of the ordinary observational or open-loop experimental paradigm. That is, our paradigm enables participants to control the bivariate sensorimotor excitability, and determines whether it is possible to manipulate the IHI magnitude.

Using the novel closed-loop bivariate (bi-hemispheric brain state-dependent) EEG-triggered dual-coil paired-pulse TMS system (bi-EEG-triggered dual-TMS), we evaluated the effects of different states of the targeted bidirectional up- or down-regulated one-sided hemisphere on effective inhibitory interhemispheric network expressed by IHI: (1) resting-state (REST), (2) during right finger motor imagery (MI) without visual feedback (NoFB), (3) high (HIGH), (4) middle (MID), and (5) low (LOW) excitability states of the ipsilateral SM1 (conditioning side) to the unilateral imagined hand movement while maintaining constant contralateral excitability during BCI-based neurofeedback (Figure 1B). Inspired by the findings that SMR-ERD was associated with corticospinal excitability amplitude (Takemi et al., 2015; Takemi et al., 2013), we hypothesized that the ipsilateral SMR-ERD to the imagined (right) hand is a potent up- or down-regulator of IHI from the ipsilateral (right) to the contralateral (left) hemisphere. This multimodal research provides strong evidence for the dynamic interplay between distinct regions underlying IHI through BCI-based neurofeedback, and may therefore form the basis for interhemispheric sensorimotor activity.

Values corresponding to each statistical figure are presented in each table (Supplementary file 1) for readability.

Modulation effects of bilateral SM1 at EEG level

We tested whether participants could learn volitional up- or down-regulation of the ipsilateral sensorimotor excitability to the imagined right hand while maintaining constant contralateral sensorimotor excitability at the EEG level using a spatially bivariate BCI-based neurofeedback. For the contralateral SMR-ERD, a one-way rmANOVA for the sessions (five levels: REST, NoFB, HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed a significant difference (F_(4,102) = 4.81, p=0.014, and η²=0.16). Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests demonstrated no significant differences in the contralateral SMR-ERD between the neurofeedback sessions (HIGH-MID: Cohen’s d=0.13, p=1.00; HIGH-LOW: Cohen’s d=0.22, p=1.00; MID-LOW: Cohen’s d=0.11, p=1.00), whereas significant differences were found between REST and other sessions (all p<0.05; Figure 2A). In contrast, after showing significant differences in the ipsilateral SMR-ERD between sessions (F_(4,102) = 156.0, p<0.001, and η²=0.86), post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed that ipsilateral SMR-ERD increased during the HIGH session (HIGH-MID: Cohen’s d=3.12, p<0.001; HIGH-LOW: Cohen’s d=6.13, p<0.001) and decreased during the LOW session (MID-LOW: Cohen’s d=4.44, p<0.001), revealing a significant bidirectional modulation compared to baseline sensorimotor endogenous activity (Figure 2B). The spatial patterns of SMR-ERD in each session are depicted in Figure 2C. We found that the SMR-ERDs were predominantly localized in bilateral parieto-temporal regions (C3 and C4 channels and their periphery), and strong ipsilateral SMR-ERD was observed in the HIGH session with constant contralateral SMR-ERD. Modulation effects of the contralateral and ipsilateral excitabilities (power attenuation) in the theta (4–7 Hz), low beta (14–20 Hz), high beta (21–30 Hz), and gamma (31–50 Hz) bands were shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1 (see also Supplementary file 1–Table 2).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

IHI curves at rest

To validate IHI measurement under bi-EEG-triggered dual-TMS setup, IHI curves were obtained at rest (Figure 3A) in 20 out of 24 participants, with conditioning stimulus (CS) of varying intensity (five different intensities, 100–140% of resting motor threshold [RMT], in steps of 10% RMT). A one-way rmANOVA for intensities (six levels: 0 [single test stimulus: TS-only], 100, 110, 120, 130, and 140% RMT) revealed significant difference in intensity (F_(5,109) = 8.31, p<0.001, η²=0.28). Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed significant difference between TS-only and 100–140% of RMT (TS-only versus 100% RMT: p=0.039, TS-only versus 110–140% RMT: all p<0.001). There were no significant differences across CS intensities, while the size of MEP amplitude tended to be smaller for larger CS intensities. The IHI was approximately half of the maximum when the CS intensity was approximately 130% of RMT, which was compatible with a previous EEG-TMS experiment (Stefanou et al., 2018; Tsutsumi et al., 2012). In addition, the stimulus intensities of the left and right M1 to evoke MEP of 1 mV peak-to-peak amplitude from the relaxed right and left first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles (SI_1mV) were determined and used for the following dual-coil paired-pulse TMS setup. The average SI_1mV of TS and CS were 124 ± 11% RMT and 132 ± 13% RMT, respectively. We also confirmed that the SI_1mV of CS showed approximately 50% of the mean conditioned MEP over the mean unconditioned test MEP (Figure 3B).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

IHI manipulation via spatially bivariate BCI-based neurofeedback

Typical examples of MEP amplitude elicited by single TS (TS-only) and paired-pulse stimulation (CS + TS) of a representative participant are shown in Figure 4A. The manipulation range of IHI (i.e. the difference between HIGH and LOW sessions) was 32.6 ± 30.7% (Cohen’s d=1.50) in all participants excluding 2 participants with data corruption (i.e. 22 participants). A one-way rmANOVA of the sessions (five levels: REST, NoFB, HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed significant differences in IHI magnitude (F_(4,101) = 6.85, p<0.001, η²=0.22). Across the three BCI-based neurofeedback sessions (i.e. HIGH, MID, and LOW sessions) for the comparison of IHI magnitude, post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed significant difference between HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=0.94, p=0.025), and between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=1.36, p<0.001), but not between MID and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=0.42, p=0.424; Figure 4B). In addition, we found disinhibition in NoFB session compared to REST session, although there was no statistical difference (Cohen’s d=0.42, p=0.279); this trend is consistent with the previous studies, which reported that in healthy participants, IHI targeting the moving index finger leads to disinhibition before the movement onset to produce voluntary movement (Duque et al., 2005; Murase et al., 2004) and during isometric contraction (Nelson et al., 2009). Importantly, rmANOVA for the MEP amplitudes induced by TS-only revealed no significant differences between all sessions (F_(4,101) = 2.44, p=0.104, η²=0.09), suggesting that participants could learn to volitionally regulate the ipsilateral sensorimotor excitability while maintaining constant contralateral sensorimotor excitability (Figure 4C). A linear mixed-effect model that considered the contralateral SMR-ERD and ipsilateral SMR-ERD as fixed effect in the statistical regression model, and participants as random effect revealed a significant effect of the ipsilateral SMR-ERD (p<0.001) on IHI magnitude, but no main effect of the contralateral SMR-ERD or contralateral SMR-ERD × ipsilateral SMR-ERD interaction (p=0.828 and p=0.058, respectively).

Figure 4 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To examine the IHI magnitude during neurofeedback, we further compared the IHI magnitude across sessions by calculating the percentage changes in IHI magnitude to baseline (i.e. NoFB session), and investigating the difference between REST, HIGH, MID, and LOW sessions. A one-way rmANOVA for sessions (four levels: REST, HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed significant differences (F_(3,81) = 8.32, p<0.001, η²=0.24). Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed significant differences between HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=1.06, p=0.017), and between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=1.42, p<0.001), but not between MID and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=0.45, p=0.734; Figure 4—figure supplement 1). The normalized results were compatible with the results without normalization presented in Figure 4.

To further examine the influence of spontaneous SMR fluctuations on IHI, non-triggered TMS trial (referred to as the failed trial) was delivered in random timing ranging from 5.5 to 6 s during the MI epoch. For example, data from HIGH session in Figure 4—figure supplement 2 were collected from MID and LOW sessions, with the target ranges of SMR-ERD in HIGH session (Figure 4—figure supplement 2). A two-way rmANOVA for sessions (three levels: HIGH, MID, and LOW) and trials (two levels: triggered TMS trials and non-triggered TMS trials) revealed a significant main effect for sessions (F_{(2, 117)} = 5.08, p=0.008, and η²=0.08), but no main effect for trials (F_{(1, 117)} = 0.32, p=0.575, and η²<0.01) and for interaction (F_{(2, 117)} = 1.82, p=0.167, and η²=0.03). Thus, no significant difference in IHI between the volitional control of SMR-ERDs in the closed-loop environment differs from spontaneous SMR fluctuations was observed. Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed significant differences between the HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=0.94, p=0.017), and between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=1.36, p<0.001) in the triggered TMS trials. In contrast, in the non-triggered TMS trials, post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed no significant differences between HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=0.20, p=1.00), and between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=0.28, p=1.00).

Although we revealed that modulating the excitability of the right hemisphere changes IHI magnitude from the right to the left hemisphere, the specificity of the IHI manipulation has not been proved yet. We presented additional results related to changes in corticospinal excitability as assessed by MEPs in the left FDI in response to the CS over the right hemisphere (Figure 4—figure supplement 3B). To investigate whether changes in IHI from the right to the left hemisphere and changes in corticospinal excitability in the right hemisphere are independent phenomena, a generalized linear model with the percentage changes of left MEP amplitude as a covariate of no interest was applied. This approach tests whether the effect of IHI manipulation survives even if the covariate is added. During the triggered TMS trials, a generalized linear model for sessions (three levels: HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed a significant main effect for sessions (F_{(3, 60)} = 12.75, p<0.001, and η²=0.44). Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests in the increase in IHI showed significant differences between HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=1.06, p<0.001), and between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=1.42, p<0.001). During the non-triggered TMS trials, a generalized linear model for sessions (three levels: HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed no main effect for sessions (F_{(3, 60)} = 1.13, p=0.319, and η²=0.10). Therefore, we successfully demonstrated that IHI changes greater than the variance explained by the CS effect and manipulation is not simply an epiphenomenon.

In the control muscle (abductor digiti minimi, ADM), such observed modulation was not driven. A one-way rmANOVA for sessions (five levels: REST, NoFB, HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed significant differences (F_(4,101) = 2.51, p<0.048, and η²=0.12). Across the three BCI-based neurofeedback sessions (i.e. HIGH, MID, and LOW sessions) for the comparison of IHI magnitude, post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests showed no significant difference between sessions (HIGH-MID: Cohen’s d=0.10, p=1.00; HIGH-LOW: Cohen’s d=0.05, p=1.00; MID-LOW: Cohen’s d=0.15, p=1.00), whereas significant difference was observed between REST and NoFB sessions (Cohen’s d=0.45, p=0.024; Figure 4—figure supplement 4A). Statistical analysis for TS-only revealed no significant differences in MEP amplitude between the sessions (F_(4,101) = 0.62, p=0.649, and η²=0.03; REST: 0.54 ± 0.51 mV, NoFB: 0.50 ± 0.39 mV, HIGH: 0.73 ± 0.61 mV, MID: 0.59 ± 0.50 mV, and LOW: 0.65 ± 0.51 mV; Figure 4—figure supplement 4B), indicating that IHI manipulation occurred only in the targeted muscle.

Associations between IHI magnitude and bilateral EEG patterns

To examine the association between IHI magnitude and bilateral EEG patterns, we performed within- and across-participant correlation analyses, respectively. In the within-participant correlation analysis between IHI magnitude and bilateral SMR-ERDs in each participant, 7 of the 22 participants showed a significant correlation between IHI magnitude and ipsilateral SMR-ERD (r = –0.307 ± 0.252 [mean ± SD]), but not between IHI magnitude and contralateral SMR-ERD in three neurofeedback sessions (r = –0.059 ± 0.298 [mean ± SD]). A chi-squared test was performed to determine the overall significance of the 22 individual correlations between IHI magnitude and contralateral or ipsilateral SMR-ERDs. A comparison of the proportions of significant results obtained from the ipsilateral (7 out of 22 participants) and contralateral (1 out of 22 participants) SMR-ERDs with the proportion expected due to chance (i.e. alpha level = 0.05) showed statistically significant differences (chi squared value = 5.50, p=0.019 [Fisher’s exact test: p=0.046]). The distributions of correlation coefficients across all participants were shown in Figure 5A.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

In the across-participant correlation between IHI magnitude and contralateral or ipsilateral SMR-ERDs, we performed a repeated measures correlation analysis (Bakdash and Marusich, 2017). We found a significant correlation in the ipsilateral SMR-ERD (r_rm=–0.436, p=0.004; Figure 5B), but not in the contralateral SMR-ERD (r_rm=0.008, p=0.960; Figure 5C).

To analyze the associations between IHI magnitude and bilateral neural network from another perspective, interhemispheric functional connectivity during MI was examined. Interhemispheric functional connectivity was quantified as a Network-intensity measure (Hayashi et al., 2020), which is calculated from the corrected imaginary part of coherence (ciCOH) (Ewald et al., 2012; Vukelić and Gharabaghi, 2015). For the Network-intensity_MI, a one-way rmANOVA for the sessions (five levels: REST, NoFB, HIGH, MID, and LOW) revealed significant differences (F_(4,102) = 3.04, p=0.020, and η²=0.10). Post-hoc two-tailed paired t-tests in all five sessions demonstrated significant differences between HIGH and MID sessions (Cohen’s d=0.83, p=0.033; Figure 5D). We found no significant difference between HIGH and LOW sessions (Cohen’s d=0.40, p=1.00; Figure 5D), suggesting that interhemispheric functional connectivity did not reflect the excitatory or inhibitory activity. Associations of IHI magnitude and contralateral or ipsilateral EEG patterns in the theta (4–7 Hz), low beta (14–20 Hz), high beta (21–30 Hz), and gamma (31–50 Hz) bands were shown in Figure 5—figure supplement 1 (see also Supplementary file 1–Table 10).

Individual characteristics associated with the manipulation capability of IHI

Finally, we investigated the neural characteristics associated with the manipulation capability of IHI calculated from the percentage change between HIGH and LOW sessions using correlation-based analysis (Figure 6A). In the relationships between the manipulation capability of IHI and IHI magnitude in REST session (IHI_rest), we found a significant correlation (r = –0.447, p=0.044), indicating that participants with greater IHI at rest were able to strongly manipulate the IHI (Figure 6B). For the relationships between resting-state effective inhibitory interhemispheric network assessed by IHI_rest and interhemispheric functional connectivity at the EEG level (Network-intensity_rest), participants with greater IHI_rest showed larger Network-intensity_rest (r=0.547, p=0.013; Figure 6C). Furthermore, we verified whether IHI_rest may be associated with intrinsic EEG profiles in NoFB sessions including bilateral SMR-ERDs. We found a significant correlation between IHI_rest and ipsilateral SMR-ERD during MI (r = –0.619, p=0.004), but not between IHI_rest and contralateral SMR-ERD during MI (r = –0.283, p=0.228).

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

In addition to the alpha band, the beta band is also a well-established EEG signature of motor execution and imagery (Crone et al., 1998; Pfurtscheller, 2001). To verify whether resting-state functional connectivity in other frequency bands (i.e. outside of feedback frequency) was associated with IHI, an across-participant Pearson’s correlation was calculated. In the across-participant correlations between IHI_rest and Network-intensity_rest in the theta (4–7 Hz), low beta (14–20 Hz), high beta (21–30 Hz), and gamma (31–50 Hz) bands, we found significant correlation in the high beta (r=–0.618, p=0.004), but not in theta (r=–0303, p=0.194), low beta (r=–0.229, p=0.331), and gamma (r=–0.390, p=0.089) bands (Figure 6—figure supplement 1A). To attenuate the aberrant effect of values in some especially low Network-intensity_rest or high (CS + TS)/TS at rest (outliers) in the theta, low-beta, high-beta, and gamma bands, the jackknife correlation and the bias were calculated (theta: r=–0.207, bias = 2.02; low-beta: r=–0.121, bias = 3.65; high-beta: r=–0.528, bias = –4.09; gamma: r=–0.310, bias = 0.06). In addition, the correlation between IHI_rest and the contralateral or ipsilateral EEG patterns in frequency bands outside of a target alpha band were in Figure 6—figure supplement 1B and C, respectively.

In the present study, we aimed to determine whether it is possible to manipulate the IHI magnitude and uncover related neural activity behind IHI modulation, while controlling bilateral SMR-ERDs via spatially bivariate BCI-based neurofeedback. This was the first study to show IHI-state manipulation with a large dynamic range induced by volitional variation in ipsilateral sensorimotor excitability expressed by SMR-ERD. In addition, resting-state interhemispheric networks at the TMS (IHI_rest) and EEG (interhemispheric Network-intensity_rest) levels were associated with the manipulation capability of IHI magnitude.

Previous neurofeedback studies have demonstrated that it is possible to gain voluntary control over central nervous system activity without externally administered interventions, if appropriate neurofeedback is embedded in a reinforcement learning task, such as food rewards for animals (Engelhard et al., 2013; Fetz, 2013) and visually rewarding stimuli for humans (Thompson et al., 2009). However, conventional BCI-based neurofeedback of the SMR signal from one hemisphere does not guarantee spatial specific activation of the sensorimotor region in the targeted hemisphere (Buch et al., 2008; Caria et al., 2011; Soekadar et al., 2015a) because sensorimotor activities in the left and right hemispheres potentially influence one another, making IHI manipulation difficult. Using spatially bivariate BCI-based neurofeedback enables participants to volitionally increase or decrease (bidirectional) the ipsilateral sensorimotor excitability, while maintaining constant contralateral sensorimotor excitability. Ipsilateral SMR-ERD to the imagined hand (but not contralateral), reflecting IHI magnitude (Figure 2B) and their significant correlation (Figure 5C), were explained by previous studies (Haegens et al., 2011; Khademi et al., 2018; Kraus et al., 2016; Madsen et al., 2019; Naros et al., 2020; Ros et al., 2010; Sauseng et al., 2009; Takemi et al., 2013; Thies et al., 2018; Zarkowski et al., 2006). The in vivo cortical recordings in monkeys revealed that pericentral alpha power was inversely related with the normalized firing rate in the sensorimotor regions (Haegens et al., 2011). In humans, several studies using single-pulse TMS of the motor hand area combined with EEG tested how ongoing pericentral oscillatory activity impacts corticomotor excitability reflected by the MEP amplitude. These EEG-TMS studies found a negative relationship between pre-stimulus alpha power and MEP amplitude through both offline (Sauseng et al., 2009; Takemi et al., 2013; Zarkowski et al., 2006) and online (Madsen et al., 2019) approaches, whereas the opposite of that was also found (Thies et al., 2018). Furthermore, another EEG-TMS study using neurofeedback demonstrated that the endogenous suppression of alpha rhythms at rest can produce robust increase in MEP amplitude and decrease in short-interval intracortical inhibition (Ros et al., 2010). Similarly, in the beta band, some evidences were revealed that a negative relationship between beta power and MEP amplitudes (Khademi et al., 2018; Kraus et al., 2016; Naros et al., 2020). As for IHI through the transcallosal fiber, it is predominantly regulated through direct postsynaptic mechanisms in the apical dendritic shafts of pyramidal neurons and a specific cortical microcircuitry mediated by dendritic GABA_B receptors in inhibitory interneurons (Palmer et al., 2012). Additionally, consistent with this phenomenon, down-regulation of ipsilateral SMR-ERD, e.g., may influence the excitation of the ipsilateral transcallosal pyramidal neuron followed by disinhibition of the contralateral inhibitory interneurons during unilateral upper limb MI. Therefore, pronounced changes in cortical mechanism despite the absence of sensory input and constant MEP amplitude in the imagined right hand elicited by single TS suggest that the modulation of IHI magnitude from the ipsilateral (right) to the contralateral (left) hemisphere was at least partly of cortical, rather than spinal origin. These neural mechanisms can be explored further by using triple pulse procedures (Ni et al., 2011) in which (dis)inhibition can be directly measured as the modulation of short-interval intracortical inhibition.

The potential contribution of resting-state IHI magnitude and interhemispheric functional connectivity in the alpha and high beta bands to the current results of manipulation capability in IHI (Figure 6B and C and Figure 6—figure supplement 1A) can be speculated by considering the previous studies. Inter-regional communication is accompanied by synchronized oscillations in different brain regions (Fries, 2005; Varela et al., 2001), and this synchronization can be evaluated by functional connectivity. Because both hemispheres are structurally connected by transcallosal projection and exhibit functional cross talks (Hofer and Frahm, 2006; Meyer et al., 1995), the manipulation capability of IHI is likely associated with a structural connectivity as well as local oscillatory power entrainment. As for frequency band outside of neurofeedback target, it is well known that the intensity of SMR-ERD in the beta band reflects the sensorimotor cortical excitability and corticomuscular activation (Hussain et al., 2019; Schulz et al., 2014). This multimodal EEG-TMS approach proves that the bilateral alpha and beta activities observed in the current study served to modulate the functional interhemispheric interaction over motor cortices.

For the other modalities, e.g., real-time fMRI-based neurofeedback to a single region of interest (Sitaram et al., 2017; Weiskopf et al., 2004) or inter-regional functional connectivity (Liew et al., 2016; Pereira et al., 2019) can be used for volitional modulation of neuronal connectivity and could serve as a possible therapeutic tool for motor or cognitive training in diseases related to impaired inter-regional connectivity. However, even fMRI-based neurofeedback with high spatial resolution, based on blood oxygenation level-dependent signal, cannot easily distinguish between the excitatory and the inhibitory activities from each region (Moon et al., 2021). Additionally, neurofeedback using interhemispheric functional connectivity has the possibility to counteract the modulation of IHIs from the right to left hemisphere and from the left to right hemisphere. Our results showed no significant difference in Network-intensity during MI between HIGH and LOW sessions (Figure 5D), indicating that interhemispheric functional connectivity at the EEG level was not changed, whereas IHI was modulated. This may indicate that IHI and Network-intensity simply reflect the activity of different neural populations; interhemispheric projections act via surround/lateral inhibition in the sensory and motor cortices (Carson, 2020), while the synchrony at the EEG level reflects changes in the activity of local interactions between pyramidal neurons and interneurons in the thalamocortical loops (Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva, 1999). Furthermore, it is possible that Network-intensity reflects the degree of bidirectional synchrony between the two motor cortices, while IHI reflects one-way (right-to-left) inhibitory effects. Therefore, it is unclear whether fMRI-based neurofeedback using interhemispheric functional connectivity is linked to ipsilateral excitability, and whether it modulates IHI magnitude.

Interhemispheric activity is also passively modulated by externally administered interventions, e.g., tDCS or rTMS over the motor cortices (Gilio et al., 2003; Pena-Gomez et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2010). Although such tools have neuromodulation efficacy, their long-term sustained effects are often limited and they do not have spatial specificity due to the remote effects (Di Pino et al., 2014; Notturno et al., 2014; Weiskopf et al., 2004). Conversely, under the conscious selflearning environment, volitional control of MEP amplitudes is retained for at least 6 months without further training (Ruddy et al., 2018), which supports the future prediction of long-term efficacy of IHI manipulation. In addition, we successfully demonstrated that IHI changes greater than the variance explained by the CS effect. Based on our findings, further experiments may help to better understand the pathway specificity. To further confirm whether the participants learned pathway-specific IHI manipulation, the CS effect should be kept constant across the conditions by adjusting the CS intensity to evoke left MEP of 1 mV peak-to-peak amplitude. Furthermore, the effect size of IHI manipulation in the current study (Cohen’s d=1.50) was comparable with that of representative tDCS (Cohen’s d=1.55) (Williams et al., 2010) and superior to that of rTMS studies (Gilio et al., 2003) (Cohen’s d=0.80; note that it is a read from the graph). Two meta-analyses of clinical trials using rTMS and tDCS also indicated that the effect sizes were medium (0.4–0.6) (Adeyemo et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2012). Based on a previous study of neurofeedback training combined with externally administered interventions (Ang et al., 2015), their combination may contribute to facilitating neural plasticity.

Our techniques and evidences are expected to be applied in various fields, e.g., in the context of neurorehabilitation. In stroke patients, the interhemispheric imbalance/competition model predicts the presence of asymmetry in the interhemispheric sensorimotor network, with excessive inhibition from the non-affected hemisphere limiting motor performance and maximal recovery (Duque et al., 2005; Murase et al., 2004). Therefore, it is believed that guiding inhibitory interhemispheric network to the appropriate pattern through both targeted up-conditioning in the affected hemisphere and down-conditioning in the non-affected hemisphere may contribute to reduced abnormal IHI and enhanced achievable functional recovery (Chieffo et al., 2013; Di Pino et al., 2014; Dong et al., 2006; Hummel and Cohen, 2006). Although the rehabilitation strategy of attempting to rebalance interhemispheric networks in order to improve motor recovery after stroke is controversial (Bundy et al., 2017; Carson, 2020; Xu et al., 2019), the current technique can be tailored either to up-conditioning the damaged hemisphere, down-conditioning the intact hemisphere, a combination of both, or vice versa depending on the patient’s specific states. Furthermore, a previous review advocated the conceptual framework and suggested that a fundamental role of IHI is to support the narrowing of excitatory focus by co-opting the capacities of the two cerebral hemispheres (Carson, 2020). This framework is consistent with the known associations between the structural integrity of callosal projections and the magnitude of the motor deficits after stroke (Auriat et al., 2015; Granziera et al., 2012; Koh et al., 2018). Thus, our spatially bivariate EEG-neurofeedback approach might be highly relevant to application perspective in the context of stroke recovery as well as a basic science perspective. Future work probing the residual ability to manipulate IHI in stroke patients is warranted.

Source data used to generate the figures are publicly available via Dryad Digital Repository, accessible here: Hayashi, Masaaki (2021), Spatially bivariate EEG-neurofeedback can manipulate interhemispheric rebalancing of M1 excitability, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hhmgqnkj3 Scripts used for the neurofeedback experiment are available on GitHub (https://github.com/MasaakiHayashi/elife-neurofeedback-experiment, (copy archived at swh:1:rev:20fab186058b4f59577c1d4da31f9fff377a129e)).

1. 1. Hayashi M

   (2021) Dryad Digital Repository

   Data from Spatially bivariate EEG-neurofeedback can manipulate interhemispheric rebalancing of M1 excitability.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hhmgqnkj3
2. 1. Hayashi M

   (2022) GitHub

   ID elife-neurofeedback-experiment. Spatially bivariate EEG-neurofeedback can manipulate interhemispheric inhibition.

   https://github.com/MasaakiHayashi/elife-neurofeedback-experiment

1. 1. Adeyemo BO
   2. Simis M
   3. Macea DD
   4. Fregni F

   (2012) Systematic review of parameters of stimulation, clinical trial design characteristics, and motor outcomes in non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke

   Frontiers in Psychiatry 3:88.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00088

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ames KC
   2. Churchland MM

   (2019) Motor cortex signals for each arm are mixed across hemispheres and neurons yet partitioned within the population response

   eLife 8:e46159.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46159

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ang KK
   2. Guan C
   3. Phua KS
   4. Wang C
   5. Zhao L
   6. Teo WP
   7. Chen C
   8. Ng YS
   9. Chew E

   (2015) Facilitating effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor imagery brain-computer interface with robotic feedback for stroke rehabilitation

   Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 96:S79–S87.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.08.008

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Ang KK
   2. Guan C

   (2017) EEG-Based strategies to detect motor imagery for control and rehabilitation

   IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 25:392–401.

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2646763

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Arai N
   2. Müller-Dahlhaus F
   3. Murakami T
   4. Bliem B
   5. Lu MK
   6. Ugawa Y
   7. Ziemann U

   (2011) State-dependent and timing-dependent bidirectional associative plasticity in the human SMA-M1 network

   The Journal of Neuroscience 31:15376–15383.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2271-11.2011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Auriat AM
   2. Borich MR
   3. Snow NJ
   4. Wadden KP
   5. Boyd LA

   (2015) Comparing a diffusion tensor and non-tensor approach to white matter fiber tractography in chronic stroke

   NeuroImage. Clinical 7:771–781.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.03.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bakdash JZ
   2. Marusich LR

   (2017) Repeated measures correlation

   Frontiers in Psychology 8:13.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Banich MT

   (1998) The missing link: the role of interhemispheric interaction in attentional processing

   Brain and Cognition 36:128–157.

   https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1997.0950

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Boddington LJ
   2. Reynolds JNJ

   (2017) Targeting interhemispheric inhibition with neuromodulation to enhance stroke rehabilitation

   Brain Stimulation 10:214–222.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.01.006

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Buch E
    2. Weber C
    3. Cohen LG
    4. Braun C
    5. Dimyan MA
    6. Ard T
    7. Mellinger J
    8. Caria A
    9. Soekadar S
    10. Fourkas A
    11. Birbaumer N

    (2008) Think to move: A neuromagnetic brain-computer interface (BCI) system for chronic stroke

    Stroke 39:910–917.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.505313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bundy DT
    2. Souders L
    3. Baranyai K
    4. Leonard L
    5. Schalk G
    6. Coker R
    7. Moran DW
    8. Huskey T
    9. Leuthardt EC

    (2017) Contralesional brain-computer interface control of a powered exoskeleton for motor recovery in chronic stroke survivors

    Stroke 48:1908–1915.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Caria A
    2. Weber C
    3. Brötz D
    4. Ramos A
    5. Ticini LF
    6. Gharabaghi A
    7. Braun C
    8. Birbaumer N

    (2011) Chronic stroke recovery after combined BCI training and physiotherapy: A case report

    Psychophysiology 48:578–582.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01117.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Carson RG

    (2020) Inter-hemispheric inhibition sculpts the output of neural circuits by co-opting the two cerebral hemispheres

    The Journal of Physiology 598:4781–4802.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/JP279793

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Carter Leno V
    2. Tomlinson SB
    3. Chang SAA
    4. Naples AJ
    5. McPartland JC

    (2018) Resting-state alpha power is selectively associated with autistic traits reflecting behavioral rigidity

    Scientific Reports 8:7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30445-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chaudhary U
    2. Birbaumer N
    3. Ramos-Murguialday A

    (2016) Brain-computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation

    Nature Reviews. Neurology 12:513–525.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2016.113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Chieffo R
    2. Inuggi A
    3. Straffi L
    4. Coppi E
    5. Gonzalez-Rosa J
    6. Spagnolo F
    7. Poggi A
    8. Comi G
    9. Comola M
    10. Leocani L

    (2013) Mapping early changes of cortical motor output after subcortical stroke: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

    Brain Stimulation 6:322–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.06.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cohen J

    (1992) A power primer

    Psychological Bulletin 112:155–159.

    https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Crone NE
    2. Miglioretti DL
    3. Gordon B
    4. Sieracki JM
    5. Wilson MT
    6. Uematsu S
    7. Lesser RP

    (1998)

    Functional mapping of human sensorimotor cortex with electrocorticographic spectral analysis I Alpha and beta event-related desynchronization

    Brain: A Journal of Neurology 121:2271–2299.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Daskalakis ZJ
    2. Christensen BK
    3. Fitzgerald PB
    4. Roshan L
    5. Chen R

    (2002) The mechanisms of interhemispheric inhibition in the human motor cortex

    The Journal of Physiology 543:317–326.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2002.017673

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Devanne H
    2. Lavoie BA
    3. Capaday C

    (1997) Input-output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway

    Experimental Brain Research 114:329–338.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00005641

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Di Pino G
    2. Pellegrino G
    3. Assenza G
    4. Capone F
    5. Ferreri F
    6. Formica D
    7. Ranieri F
    8. Tombini M
    9. Ziemann U
    10. Rothwell JC
    11. Di Lazzaro V

    (2014) Modulation of brain plasticity in stroke: A novel model for neurorehabilitation

    Nature Reviews. Neurology 10:597–608.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.162

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dong Y
    2. Dobkin BH
    3. Cen SY
    4. Wu AD
    5. Winstein CJ

    (2006) Motor cortex activation during treatment may predict therapeutic gains in paretic hand function after stroke

    Stroke 37:1552–1555.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000221281.69373.4e

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Dunst B
    2. Benedek M
    3. Koschutnig K
    4. Jauk E
    5. Neubauer AC

    (2014) Sex differences in the IQ-white matter microstructure relationship: A DTI study

    Brain and Cognition 91:71–78.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.08.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Duque J
    2. Hummel F
    3. Celnik P
    4. Murase N
    5. Mazzocchio R
    6. Cohen LG

    (2005) Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke

    NeuroImage 28:940–946.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Duque J
    2. Murase N
    3. Celnik P
    4. Hummel F
    5. Harris-Love M
    6. Mazzocchio R
    7. Olivier E
    8. Cohen LG

    (2007) Intermanual Differences in movement-related interhemispheric inhibition

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19:204–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Engelhard B
    2. Ozeri N
    3. Israel Z
    4. Bergman H
    5. Vaadia E

    (2013) Inducing γ oscillations and precise spike synchrony by operant conditioning via brain-machine interface

    Neuron 77:361–375.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ewald A
    2. Marzetti L
    3. Zappasodi F
    4. Meinecke FC
    5. Nolte G

    (2012) Estimating true brain connectivity from EEG/MEG data invariant to linear and static transformations in sensor space

    NeuroImage 60:476–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Faul F
    2. Erdfelder E
    3. Buchner A
    4. Lang AG

    (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses

    Behavior Research Methods 41:1149–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ferbert A
    2. Priori A
    3. Rothwell JC
    4. Day BL
    5. Colebatch JG
    6. Marsden CD

    (1992) Interhemispheric inhibition of the human motor cortex

    The Journal of Physiology 453:525–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1992.sp019243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Ferree TC
    2. Luu P
    3. Russell GS
    4. Tucker DM

    (2001) Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality

    Clinical Neurophysiology 112:536–544.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(00)00533-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fetz EE

    (2013) Volitional control of cortical oscillations and synchrony

    Neuron 77:216–218.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fries P

    (2005) A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:474–480.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ghosh S
    2. Mehta AR
    3. Huang G
    4. Gunraj C
    5. Hoque T
    6. Saha U
    7. Ni Z
    8. Chen R

    (2013) Short- and long-latency interhemispheric inhibitions are additive in human motor cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 109:2955–2962.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00960.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Gilio F
    2. Rizzo V
    3. Siebner HR
    4. Rothwell JC

    (2003) Effects on the right motor hand-area excitability produced by low-frequency rTMS over human contralateral homologous cortex

    The Journal of Physiology 551:563–573.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2003.044313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Granziera C
    2. Daducci A
    3. Meskaldji DE
    4. Roche A
    5. Maeder P
    6. Michel P
    7. Hadjikhani N
    8. Sorensen AG
    9. Frackowiak RS
    10. Thiran JP
    11. Meuli R
    12. Krueger G

    (2012) A new early and automated MRI-based predictor of motor improvement after stroke

    Neurology 79:39–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31825f25e7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Groppa S
    2. Oliviero A
    3. Eisen A
    4. Quartarone A
    5. Cohen LG
    6. Mall V
    7. Kaelin-Lang A
    8. Mima T
    9. Rossi S
    10. Thickbroom GW
    11. Rossini PM
    12. Ziemann U
    13. Valls-Solé J
    14. Siebner HR

    (2012) A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee

    Clinical Neurophysiology 123:858–882.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Haegens S
    2. Nácher V
    3. Luna R
    4. Romo R
    5. Jensen O

    (2011) α-Oscillations in the monkey sensorimotor network influence discrimination performance by rhythmical inhibition of neuronal spiking

    PNAS 108:19377–19382.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117190108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hallett M

    (2007) Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A primer

    Neuron 55:187–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Harris-Love ML
    2. Perez MA
    3. Chen R
    4. Cohen LG

    (2007) Interhemispheric inhibition in distal and proximal arm representations in the primary motor cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 97:2511–2515.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01331.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hayashi M
    2. Tsuchimoto S
    3. Mizuguchi N
    4. Miyatake M
    5. Kasuga S
    6. Ushiba J

    (2019) Two-stage regression of high-density scalp electroencephalograms visualizes force regulation signaling during muscle contraction

    Journal of Neural Engineering 16:14.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab221a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hayashi M
    2. Mizuguchi N
    3. Tsuchimoto S
    4. Ushiba J

    (2020) Neurofeedback of scalp bi-hemispheric EEG sensorimotor rhythm guides hemispheric activation of sensorimotor cortex in the targeted hemisphere

    NeuroImage 223:117298.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117298

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hayashi M
    2. Mizuguchi N
    3. Tsuchimoto S
    4. Ushiba J

    (2021) Neurofeedback of scalp bi-hemispheric EEG sensorimotor rhythm guides hemispheric activation of sensorimotor cortex in the targeted hemisphere. Brain-Computer Interface Research: A State-of-the-Art Summary

    SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering 9:25–38.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60460-8_3

    • Google Scholar
43. Software

    1. Hayashi M

    (2022) Masaaki Hayashi. 2022. elife-neurofeedback-experiment, version 20fab18

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/MasaakiHayashi/elife-neurofeedback-experiment
44. 1. He S
    2. Everest-Phillips C
    3. Clouter A
    4. Brown P
    5. Tan H

    (2020) Neurofeedback-linked suppression of cortical β bursts speeds up movement initiation in healthy motor control: a double-blind sham-controlled study

    The Journal of Neuroscience 40:4021–4032.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0208-20.2020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Hofer S
    2. Frahm J

    (2006) Topography of the human corpus callosum revisited--comprehensive fiber tractography using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging

    NeuroImage 32:989–994.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Hsu WY
    2. Cheng CH
    3. Liao KK
    4. Lee IH
    5. Lin YY

    (2012) Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor functions in patients with stroke: A meta-analysis

    Stroke 43:1849–1857.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.649756

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hummel FC
    2. Cohen LG

    (2006) Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke?

    The Lancet. Neurology 5:708–712.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70525-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hussain SJ
    2. Claudino L
    3. Bönstrup M
    4. Norato G
    5. Cruciani G
    6. Thompson R
    7. Zrenner C
    8. Ziemann U
    9. Buch E
    10. Cohen LG

    (2019) Sensorimotor oscillatory phase-power interaction gates resting human corticospinal output

    Cerebral Cortex 29:3766–3777.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy255

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Iwama S
    2. Tsuchimoto S
    3. Hayashi M
    4. Mizuguchi N
    5. Ushiba J

    (2020) Scalp electroencephalograms over ipsilateral sensorimotor cortex reflect contraction patterns of unilateral finger muscles

    NeuroImage 222:117249.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117249

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Khademi F
    2. Royter V
    3. Gharabaghi A

    (2018) Distinct beta-band oscillatory circuits underlie corticospinal gain modulation

    Cerebral Cortex 28:1502–1515.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Kober SE
    2. Witte M
    3. Grinschgl S
    4. Neuper C
    5. Wood G

    (2018) Placebo hampers ability to self-regulate brain activity: A double-blind sham-controlled neurofeedback study

    NeuroImage 181:797–806.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Koh CL
    2. Tang PF
    3. Chen HI
    4. Hsu YC
    5. Hsieh CL
    6. Tseng WYI

    (2018) Impaired callosal motor fiber integrity and upper extremity motor impairment are associated with stroke lesion location

    Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 32:602–612.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968318779730

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Kraus D
    2. Naros G
    3. Bauer R
    4. Leão MT
    5. Ziemann U
    6. Gharabaghi A

    (2016) Brain-robot interface driven plasticity: Distributed modulation of corticospinal excitability

    NeuroImage 125:522–532.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Liang N
    2. Funase K
    3. Takahashi M
    4. Matsukawa K
    5. Kasai T

    (2014) Unilateral imagined movement increases interhemispheric inhibition from the contralateral to ipsilateral motor cortex

    Experimental Brain Research 232:1823–1832.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3874-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Liew S-L
    2. Rana M
    3. Cornelsen S
    4. Fortunato de Barros Filho M
    5. Birbaumer N
    6. Sitaram R
    7. Cohen LG
    8. Soekadar SR

    (2016) Improving motor corticothalamic communication after stroke using real-time fMRI connectivity-based neurofeedback

    Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 30:671–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968315619699

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Madsen KH
    2. Karabanov AN
    3. Krohne LG
    4. Safeldt MG
    5. Tomasevic L
    6. Siebner HR

    (2019) No trace of phase: Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm

    Brain Stimulation 12:1261–1270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. McFarland DJ
    2. McCane LM
    3. David SV
    4. Wolpaw JR

    (1997) Spatial filter selection for EEG-based communication

    Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 103:386–394.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0013-4694(97)00022-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Menzler K
    2. Belke M
    3. Wehrmann E
    4. Krakow K
    5. Lengler U
    6. Jansen A
    7. Hamer HM
    8. Oertel WH
    9. Rosenow F
    10. Knake S

    (2011) Men and women are different: diffusion tensor imaging reveals sexual dimorphism in the microstructure of the thalamus, corpus callosum and cingulum

    NeuroImage 54:2557–2562.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Meyer BU
    2. Röricht S
    3. von Einsiedel HG
    4. Kruggel F
    5. Weindl A

    (1995) Inhibitory and excitatory interhemispheric transfers between motor cortical areas in normal humans and patients with abnormalities of the corpus callosum

    Brain: A Journal of Neurology 118:429–440.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/118.2.429

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Moher D
    2. Schulz KF
    3. Altman D

    (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials

    JAMA 285:1987–1991.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.1987

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Moon HS
    2. Jiang H
    3. Vo TT
    4. Jung WB
    5. Vazquez AL
    6. Kim SG

    (2021) Contribution of excitatory and inhibitory neuronal activity to bold fMRI

    Cerebral Cortex 31:4053–4067.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Morishita T
    2. Uehara K
    3. Funase K

    (2012) Changes in interhemispheric inhibition from active to resting primary motor cortex during a fine-motor manipulation task

    Journal of Neurophysiology 107:3086–3094.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00888.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Murase N
    2. Duque J
    3. Mazzocchio R
    4. Cohen LG

    (2004) Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke

    Annals of Neurology 55:400–409.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.10848

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Naros G
    2. Lehnertz T
    3. Leão MT
    4. Ziemann U
    5. Gharabaghi A

    (2020) Brain state-dependent gain modulation of corticospinal output in the active motor system

    Cerebral Cortex 30:371–381.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhz093

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Nelson AJ
    2. Hoque T
    3. Gunraj C
    4. Ni Z
    5. Chen R

    (2009) Bi-directional interhemispheric inhibition during unimanual sustained contractions

    BMC Neuroscience 10:31.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-31

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Neuper C
    2. Pfurtscheller G

    (2001) Event-related dynamics of cortical rhythms: frequency-specific features and functional correlates

    International Journal of Psychophysiology 43:41–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(01)00178-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Neuper C
    2. Scherer R
    3. Reiner M
    4. Pfurtscheller G

    (2005) Imagery of motor actions: differential effects of kinesthetic and visual-motor mode of imagery in single-trial EEG

    Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 25:668–677.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Neuper C
    2. Wörtz M
    3. Pfurtscheller G

    (2006) ERD/ERS patterns reflecting sensorimotor activation and deactivation

    Progress in Brain Research 159:211–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)59014-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Ni Z
    2. Gunraj C
    3. Nelson AJ
    4. Yeh IJ
    5. Castillo G
    6. Hoque T
    7. Chen R

    (2009) Two phases of interhemispheric inhibition between motor related cortical areas and the primary motor cortex in human

    Cerebral Cortex 19:1654–1665.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn201

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Ni Z
    2. Müller-Dahlhaus F
    3. Chen R
    4. Ziemann U

    (2011) Triple-pulse TMS to study interactions between neural circuits in human cortex

    Brain Stimulation 4:281–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Notturno F
    2. Marzetti L
    3. Pizzella V
    4. Uncini A
    5. Zappasodi F

    (2014) Local and remote effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on the electrical activity of the motor cortical network

    Human Brain Mapping 35:2220–2232.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22322

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Oldfield RC

    (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory

    Neuropsychologia 9:97–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Palmer LM
    2. Schulz JM
    3. Murphy SC
    4. Ledergerber D
    5. Murayama M
    6. Larkum ME

    (2012) The cellular basis of GABA(B)-mediated interhemispheric inhibition

    Science 335:989–993.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217276

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Pena-Gomez C
    2. Sala-Lonch R
    3. Junqué C
    4. Clemente IC
    5. Vidal D
    6. Bargalló N
    7. Falcón C
    8. Valls-Solé J
    9. Pascual-Leone Á
    10. Bartrés-Faz D

    (2012) Modulation of large-scale brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation evidenced by resting-state functional MRI

    Brain Stimulation 5:252–263.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.08.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Pereira J
    2. Direito B
    3. Sayal A
    4. Ferreira C
    5. Castelo-Branco M

    (2019) Self-modulation of premotor cortex interhemispheric connectivity in a real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback study using an adaptive approach

    Brain Connectivity 9:662–672.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2019.0697

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Pfurtscheller G
    2. Neuper C

    (1997) Motor imagery activates primary sensorimotor area in humans

    Neuroscience Letters 239:65–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00889-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Pfurtscheller G
    2. Lopes da Silva FH

    (1999) Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles

    Clinical Neurophysiology 110:1842–1857.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(99)00141-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Pfurtscheller G

    (2001) Functional brain imaging based on ERD/ERS

    Vision Research 41:1257–1260.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00235-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Pfurtscheller G
    2. Brunner C
    3. Schlögl A
    4. Lopes da Silva FH

    (2006) Mu rhythm (de)synchronization and EEG single-trial classification of different motor imagery tasks

    NeuroImage 31:153–159.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Picazio S
    2. Veniero D
    3. Ponzo V
    4. Caltagirone C
    5. Gross J
    6. Thut G
    7. Koch G

    (2014) Prefrontal control over motor cortex cycles at beta frequency during movement inhibition

    Current Biology 24:2940–2945.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Ramos-Murguialday A
    2. Broetz D
    3. Rea M
    4. Läer L
    5. Yilmaz O
    6. Brasil FL
    7. Liberati G
    8. Curado MR
    9. Garcia-Cossio E
    10. Vyziotis A
    11. Cho W
    12. Agostini M
    13. Soares E
    14. Soekadar S
    15. Caria A
    16. Cohen LG
    17. Birbaumer N

    (2013) Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: A controlled study

    Annals of Neurology 74:100–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23879

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Robertson MM
    2. Furlong S
    3. Voytek B
    4. Donoghue T
    5. Boettiger CA
    6. Sheridan MA

    (2019) EEG power spectral slope differs by ADHD status and stimulant medication exposure in early childhood

    Journal of Neurophysiology 122:2427–2437.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00388.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Ros T
    2. Munneke MAM
    3. Ruge D
    4. Gruzelier JH
    5. Rothwell JC

    (2010) Endogenous control of waking brain rhythms induces neuroplasticity in humans

    The European Journal of Neuroscience 31:770–778.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07100.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Ros T
    2. Enriquez-Geppert S
    3. Zotev V
    4. Young KD
    5. Wood G
    6. Whitfield-Gabrieli S
    7. Wan F
    8. Vuilleumier P
    9. Vialatte F
    10. Van De Ville D
    11. Todder D
    12. Surmeli T
    13. Sulzer JS
    14. Strehl U
    15. Sterman MB
    16. Steiner NJ
    17. Sorger B
    18. Soekadar SR
    19. Sitaram R
    20. Sherlin LH
    21. Schönenberg M
    22. Scharnowski F
    23. Schabus M
    24. Rubia K
    25. Rosa A
    26. Reiner M
    27. Pineda JA
    28. Paret C
    29. Ossadtchi A
    30. Nicholson AA
    31. Nan W
    32. Minguez J
    33. Micoulaud-Franchi JA
    34. Mehler DMA
    35. Lührs M
    36. Lubar J
    37. Lotte F
    38. Linden DEJ
    39. Lewis-Peacock JA
    40. Lebedev MA
    41. Lanius RA
    42. Kübler A
    43. Kranczioch C
    44. Koush Y
    45. Konicar L
    46. Kohl SH
    47. Kober SE
    48. Klados MA
    49. Jeunet C
    50. Janssen TWP
    51. Huster RJ
    52. Hoedlmoser K
    53. Hirshberg LM
    54. Heunis S
    55. Hendler T
    56. Hampson M
    57. Guggisberg AG
    58. Guggenberger R
    59. Gruzelier JH
    60. Göbel RW
    61. Gninenko N
    62. Gharabaghi A
    63. Frewen P
    64. Fovet T
    65. Fernández T
    66. Escolano C
    67. Ehlis AC
    68. Drechsler R
    69. Christopher deCharms R
    70. Debener S
    71. De Ridder D
    72. Davelaar EJ
    73. Congedo M
    74. Cavazza M
    75. Breteler MHM
    76. Brandeis D
    77. Bodurka J
    78. Birbaumer N
    79. Bazanova OM
    80. Barth B
    81. Bamidis PD
    82. Auer T
    83. Arns M
    84. Thibault RT

    (2020) Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist

    Brain: A Journal of Neurology 143:1674–1685.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Rossi S
    2. Hallett M
    3. Rossini PM
    4. Pascual-Leone A
    5. Safety of TMS Consensus Group

    (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research

    Clinical Neurophysiology 120:2008–2039.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Rossini PM
    2. Barker AT
    3. Berardelli A
    4. Caramia MD
    5. Caruso G
    6. Cracco RQ
    7. Dimitrijević MR
    8. Hallett M
    9. Katayama Y
    10. Lücking CH
    11. Noordhout AL
    12. Marsden CD
    13. Murray NMF
    14. Rothwell JC
    15. Swash M
    16. Tomberg C

    (1994) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application

    Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 91:79–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(94)90029-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Rossini PM
    2. Burke D
    3. Chen R
    4. Cohen LG
    5. Daskalakis Z
    6. Di Iorio R
    7. Di Lazzaro V
    8. Ferreri F
    9. Fitzgerald PB
    10. George MS
    11. Hallett M
    12. Lefaucheur JP
    13. Langguth B
    14. Matsumoto H
    15. Miniussi C
    16. Nitsche MA
    17. Pascual-Leone A
    18. Paulus W
    19. Rossi S
    20. Rothwell JC
    21. Siebner HR
    22. Ugawa Y
    23. Walsh V
    24. Ziemann U

    (2015) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee

    Clinical Neurophysiology 126:1071–1107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Ruddy K
    2. Balsters J
    3. Mantini D
    4. Liu Q
    5. Kassraian-Fard P
    6. Enz N
    7. Mihelj E
    8. Subhash Chander B
    9. Soekadar SR
    10. Wenderoth N

    (2018) Neural activity related to volitional regulation of cortical excitability

    eLife 7:e40843.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40843

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Safeldt MG
    2. Tomasevic L
    3. Karabanov A
    4. Siebner H
    5. Madsen KH

    (2017) Towards brain-state dependent transcranial magnetic stimulation: Targeting the phase of oscillatory neocortical activity with singe-pulse TMS

    Brain Stimulation 10:449–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.01.323

    • Google Scholar
90. Book

    1. Sanei S
    2. Chambers JA

    (2013) Introduction to EEGEEG Signal Processing

    John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470511923.ch1

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Sauseng P
    2. Klimesch W
    3. Gerloff C
    4. Hummel FC

    (2009) Spontaneous locally restricted EEG alpha activity determines cortical excitability in the motor cortex

    Neuropsychologia 47:284–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Schulz H
    2. Ubelacker T
    3. Keil J
    4. Müller N
    5. Weisz N

    (2014) Now I am ready-now I am not: The influence of pre-TMS oscillations and corticomuscular coherence on motor-evoked potentials

    Cerebral Cortex 24:1708–1719.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Sitaram R
    2. Ros T
    3. Stoeckel L
    4. Haller S
    5. Scharnowski F
    6. Lewis-Peacock J
    7. Weiskopf N
    8. Blefari ML
    9. Rana M
    10. Oblak E
    11. Birbaumer N
    12. Sulzer J

    (2017) Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 18:86–100.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.164

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Soekadar SR
    2. Birbaumer N
    3. Slutzky MW
    4. Cohen LG

    (2015a) Brain-machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke

    Neurobiology of Disease 83:172–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2014.11.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Soekadar SR
    2. Witkowski M
    3. Birbaumer N
    4. Cohen LG

    (2015b) Enhancing hebbian learning to control brain oscillatory activity

    Cerebral Cortex 25:2409–2415.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Stefanou MI
    2. Desideri D
    3. Belardinelli P
    4. Zrenner C
    5. Ziemann U

    (2018) Phase synchronicity of μ-rhythm determines efficacy of interhemispheric communication between human motor cortices

    The Journal of Neuroscience 38:10525–10534.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1470-18.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Takemi M
    2. Masakado Y
    3. Liu M
    4. Ushiba J

    (2013) Event-related desynchronization reflects downregulation of intracortical inhibition in human primary motor cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 110:1158–1166.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01092.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Takemi M
    2. Masakado Y
    3. Liu M
    4. Ushiba J

    (2015) Sensorimotor event-related desynchronization represents the excitability of human spinal motoneurons

    Neuroscience 297:58–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Takemi M
    2. Maeda T
    3. Masakado Y
    4. Siebner HR
    5. Ushiba J

    (2018) Muscle-selective disinhibition of corticomotor representations using a motor imagery-based brain-computer interface

    NeuroImage 183:597–605.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.070

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Thies M
     2. Zrenner C
     3. Ziemann U
     4. Bergmann TO

     (2018) Sensorimotor mu-alpha power is positively related to corticospinal excitability

     Brain Stimulation 11:1119–1122.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.06.006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Thompson AK
     2. Chen XY
     3. Wolpaw JR

     (2009) Acquisition of a simple motor skill: task-dependent adaptation plus long-term change in the human soleus H-reflex

     The Journal of Neuroscience 29:5784–5792.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4326-08.2009

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Tsuchimoto S
     2. Shibusawa S
     3. Iwama S
     4. Hayashi M
     5. Okuyama K
     6. Mizuguchi N
     7. Kato K
     8. Ushiba J

     (2021) Use of common average reference and large-Laplacian spatial-filters enhances EEG signal-to-noise ratios in intrinsic sensorimotor activity

     Journal of Neuroscience Methods 353:109089.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109089

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Tsutsumi R
     2. Shirota Y
     3. Ohminami S
     4. Terao Y
     5. Ugawa Y
     6. Hanajima R

     (2012) Conditioning intensity-dependent interaction between short-latency interhemispheric inhibition and short-latency afferent inhibition

     Journal of Neurophysiology 108:1130–1137.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00300.2012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Varela F
     2. Lachaux JP
     3. Rodriguez E
     4. Martinerie J

     (2001) The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration

     Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 2:229–239.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/35067550

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Vukelić M
     2. Gharabaghi A

     (2015) Oscillatory entrainment of the motor cortical network during motor imagery is modulated by the feedback modality

     NeuroImage 111:1–11.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.058

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Waters S
     2. Wiestler T
     3. Diedrichsen J

     (2017) Cooperation not competition: Bihemispheric tdcs and fmri show role for ipsilateral hemisphere in motor learning

     The Journal of Neuroscience 37:7500–7512.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3414-16.2017

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Weiskopf N
     2. Mathiak K
     3. Bock SW
     4. Scharnowski F
     5. Veit R
     6. Grodd W
     7. Goebel R
     8. Birbaumer N

     (2004) Principles of a brain-computer interface (BCI) based on real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI

     IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 51:966–970.

     https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2004.827063

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Williams JA
     2. Pascual-Leone A
     3. Fregni F

     (2010) Interhemispheric modulation induced by cortical stimulation and motor training

     Physical Therapy 90:398–410.

     https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090075

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Xu J
     2. Branscheidt M
     3. Schambra H
     4. Steiner L
     5. Widmer M
     6. Diedrichsen J
     7. Goldsmith J
     8. Lindquist M
     9. Kitago T
     10. Luft AR
     11. Krakauer JW
     12. Celnik PA
     13. SMARTS Study Group

     (2019) Rethinking interhemispheric imbalance as a target for stroke neurorehabilitation

     Annals of Neurology 85:502–513.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25452

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Yuan H
     2. Liu T
     3. Szarkowski R
     4. Rios C
     5. Ashe J
     6. He B

     (2010) Negative covariation between task-related responses in alpha/beta-band activity and BOLD in human sensorimotor cortex: an EEG and fMRI study of motor imagery and movements

     NeuroImage 49:2596–2606.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.028

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Zarkowski P
     2. Shin CJ
     3. Dang T
     4. Russo J
     5. Avery D

     (2006) EEG and the variance of motor evoked potential amplitude

     Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 37:247–251.

     https://doi.org/10.1177/155005940603700316

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Zrenner C
     2. Desideri D
     3. Belardinelli P
     4. Ziemann U

     (2018) Real-time EEG-defined excitability states determine efficacy of TMS-induced plasticity in human motor cortex

     Brain Stimulation 11:374–389.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Masaaki Hayashi

   Graduate School of Science and Technology, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   is employed by LIFESCAPES Inc

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7104-6765

2. Kohei Okuyama

   Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan

   Contribution

   Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Nobuaki Mizuguchi

   Research Organization of Science and Technology, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan

   Contribution

   Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Ryotaro Hirose

   Graduate School of Science and Technology, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Taisuke Okamoto

   Graduate School of Science and Technology, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Michiyuki Kawakami

   Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan

   Contribution

   Resources, Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Junichi Ushiba

   Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   ushiba@bio.keio.ac.jp

   Competing interests

   is a founder and the Representative Director of the University Startup Company, LIFESCAPES Inc. involved in the research, development, and sales of rehabilitation devices including brain-computer interfaces. He receives a salary from Connect Inc., and holds shares in Connect Inc. This company does not have any relationships with the device or setup used in the current study

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1161-983X

• 1,719

  views

• 391

  downloads

• 12

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.