Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Although a substantial proportion of TG participants achieved high MI accuracy values, statistical analyses revealed no cognitive improvements specific to TG, suggesting limited efficacy of the MI-based protocol compared to classical cognitive stimulation. Spectral and network analyses identified distinct modulation patterns during MI in responders, absent in non-responders. Moreover, specific resting-state features—namely increased [Formula: see text] (13–20 Hz) band relative power and reduced α (8–13 Hz) band node strength—were associated with better self-regulation performance. The present study did not provide conclusive evidence supporting the effectiveness of MI-based NF training for cognitive enhancement in older adults. Nonetheless, the results offer valuable insights that may inform the refinement of future NF-based cognitive training protocols. Moreover, our findings suggest that baseline functional network organization may play a key role in determining the capacity for successful self-regulation. Identifying additional neurophysiological biomarkers will be essential to advance our understanding of the non-responsiveness phenomenon and to enable the development of more personalized NF interventions.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Marcos-Martínez, D., Santamaría-Vázquez, E., Pérez-Velasco, S., Ruiz-Gálvez, C. R., Martín-Fernández, A., Pascual-Roa, B., et al. (2026). Motor imagery-based neurofeedback in older adults: neural signatures and feasibility in a randomized controlled trial targeting age-related cognitive decline. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-026-01912-z

Vancouver

Marcos-Martínez D, Santamaría-Vázquez E, Pérez-Velasco S, Ruiz-Gálvez CR, Martín-Fernández A, Pascual-Roa B, et al. Motor imagery-based neurofeedback in older adults: neural signatures and feasibility in a randomized controlled trial targeting age-related cognitive decline. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2026. doi:10.1186/s12984-026-01912-z. PMID: 41742172.

BibTeX

@article{marcosmartinez2026-41742172,
  author  = {Marcos-Martínez, Diego and Santamaría-Vázquez, Eduardo and Pérez-Velasco, Sergio and Ruiz-Gálvez, C. Rubén and Martín-Fernández, Ana and Pascual-Roa, Beatriz and Martínez-Velasco, Rebeca and Martínez-Cagigal, Víctor and others},
  title   = {{Motor imagery-based neurofeedback in older adults: neural signatures and feasibility in a randomized controlled trial targeting age-related cognitive decline}},
  journal = {Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12984-026-01912-z},
  pmid    = {41742172},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-026-01912-z}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

This randomized controlled trial found no cognitive improvements specific to motor imagery-based neurofeedback compared with classical cognitive stimulation. It provides no evidence that this training treats, cures or prevents Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 42/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multicenter collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 42 of 100.42 of 100 points earned58 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation: journal h-index 161 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 1 / 2 Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited 1 / 7 Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 4.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Roberto Hornero: h-index 62 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Universidad de Valladolid: institution h-index 328 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41742172)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 42 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →