https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/11/1202 Next Article in Journal Deep Learning for Pathology: YOLOv8 with EigenCAM for Reliable Colorectal Cancer Diagnostics Previous Article in Journal Preliminary Evidence of Exogenous Hydrogen Peroxide Formation via Plant Transpiration: Toward a Nature-Based Solution for Air Quality and Climate Mitigation Journals Active Journals Find a Journal Journal Proposal Proceedings Series Topics Information For Authors For Reviewers For Editors For Librarians For Publishers For Societies For Conference Organizers Open Access Policy Institutional Open Access Program Special Issues Guidelines Editorial Process Research and Publication Ethics Article Processing Charges Awards Testimonials Author Services Initiatives Sciforum MDPI Books Preprints.org Scilit SciProfiles Encyclopedia JAMS Proceedings Series About Overview Contact Careers News Press Blog Sign In / Sign Up Notice You can make submissions to other journals here. clear Notice You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader. Continue Cancel clear All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https:// www.mdpi.com/openaccess. Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications. Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers. Editor's Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal. Original Submission Date Received: . You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled. [mdpi-pub-l] clear zoom_out_map search menu [mdpi-pub-l] * Journals + o Active Journals o Find a Journal o Journal Proposal o Proceedings Series * Topics * Information + o For Authors o For Reviewers o For Editors o For Librarians o For Publishers o For Societies o For Conference Organizers o Open Access Policy o Institutional Open Access Program o Special Issues Guidelines o Editorial Process o Research and Publication Ethics o Article Processing Charges o Awards o Testimonials * Author Services * Initiatives + o Sciforum o MDPI Books o Preprints.org o Scilit o SciProfiles o Encyclopedia o JAMS o Proceedings Series * About + o Overview o Contact o Careers o News o Press o Blog Sign In / Sign Up Submit Search for Articles: Title / Keyword [ ] Author / Affiliation / Email [ ] Journal [Bioengineering ] Article Type [All Article Types ] [Search] Advanced Search Section [] Special Issue [] Volume [12 ] Issue [11 ] Number [ ] Page [ ] Logical OperatorOperator [AND] Search Text [ ] Search Type [All fields ] add_circle_outline remove_circle_outline [Search] Journals Bioengineering Volume 12 Issue 11 10.3390/bioengineering12111202 bioengineering-logo Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue > V Article Menu Article Menu * Academic Editor [Luca_Mesin]Luca Mesin * Recommended Articles * Related Info Link + Google Scholar * More by Authors Links + on DOAJ o Zacarias, R. Manuel Guerreiro o o Bulathwatta, D. Thejani o o Bidzan-Bluma, I. o o de Jesus, S. Neves o o Correia, J. Mendonca o + on Google Scholar o Zacarias, R. Manuel Guerreiro o o Bulathwatta, D. Thejani o o Bidzan-Bluma, I. o o de Jesus, S. Neves o o Correia, J. Mendonca o + on PubMed o Zacarias, R. Manuel Guerreiro o o Bulathwatta, D. Thejani o o Bidzan-Bluma, I. o o de Jesus, S. Neves o o Correia, J. Mendonca o Article Views Citations - * Table of Contents Altmetric share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles Need Help? Support Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website. Get Support Feedback Please let us know what you think of our products and services. Give Feedback Information Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI. Get Information clear JSmol Viewer clear first_page Download PDF settings Order Article Reprints Font Type: Arial Georgia Verdana Font Size: Aa Aa Aa Line Spacing: Column Width: Background: Open AccessReview EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies by Rui Manuel Guerreiro Zacarias [unknown-us]Rui Manuel Guerreiro Zacarias SciProfiles Scilit Preprints.org Google Scholar ^ 1,*^[orcid], Darshika Thejani Bulathwatta [unknown-us]Darshika Thejani Bulathwatta SciProfiles Scilit Preprints.org Google Scholar ^ 2^[orcid], Ilona Bidzan-Bluma [unknown-us]Ilona Bidzan-Bluma SciProfiles Scilit Preprints.org Google Scholar ^ 2^[orcid], Saul Neves de Jesus [unknown-us]Saul Neves de Jesus SciProfiles Scilit Preprints.org Google Scholar ^ 1^[orcid] and Joao Mendonca Correia [unknown-us]Joao Mendonca Correia SciProfiles Scilit Preprints.org Google Scholar ^ 1^[orcid] ^1 University Research Center in Psychology (CUIP), Faculty of Human and Social Sciences (FCHS), University of Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal ^2 Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, 80-309 Gdansk, Poland ^* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Bioengineering 2025, 12(11), 1202; https://doi.org/10.3390/ bioengineering12111202 Submission received: 1 September 2025 / Revised: 13 October 2025 / Accepted: 21 October 2025 / Published: 3 November 2025 (This article belongs to the Section Biosignal Processing) Download keyboard_arrow_down Download PDF Download PDF with Cover Download XML Download Epub Download Supplementary Material Browse Figures Review Reports Versions Notes Abstract Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) is a non-invasive technique that records millisecond-scale cortical electrical activity using scalp electrodes. In EEG-based neurofeedback (NFB), these signals are processed to provide real-time feedback that supports self-regulation of targeted brain rhythms; evidence suggests improvements in cognitive and neurophysiological performance in athletes and non-athletes. However, methodological inconsistencies--such as limited blinding, poor sham control, and outdated approaches to EEG spectral analysis--restrict reproducibility and hinder cumulative progress in the field. Methods: This scoping review aimed to identify and analyze the methodological characteristics, outcome measures, and reproducibility gaps in EEG-based NFB studies involving athletes and non-athletes. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically searched academic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library), as well as gray literature sources (ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS, Tripdatabase, and Google Scholar). Of 48 included studies, 44 were published in international peer-reviewed journals and 4 in regional journals. Data were extracted on study design, participant population, NFB protocols, targeted EEG rhythms, cognitive and neurophysiological outcomes, and methodological rigor. Results: The review revealed substantial heterogeneity in targeted rhythms, protocols, and reporting standards. None of the studies employed modern spectral parameterization methods (e.g., FOOOF), while only 29% used active sham protocols and 6% employed inert sham conditions. Reporting blinding procedures and follow-up assessments was limited or absent in most studies. Discussion: This review highlights critical methodological shortcomings that may bias interpretations of NFB effects in sport and cognitive domains. To strengthen future research, studies should rigorously implement sham and blinding procedures, ensure transparent reporting of EEG metrics, and adopt open-science practices, including modern approaches to spectral parameterization. Keywords: neurofeedback; EEG; sham control; reproducibility; cognitive performance; sports performance 1. Introduction Electroencephalogram-based neurofeedback (EEG-NFB) has emerged as a promising non-invasive intervention to enhance cognitive and psychophysiological functioning, including attention, emotion regulation, and motor preparation [1,2,3,4]. In sports, NFB is increasingly applied to improve performance under pressure and support resilience across disciplines such as football, archery, judo, and swimming [5]. Despite encouraging findings, such as improvements in attention, emotion regulation, and athletic performance reported in previous EEG-NFB studies [2,3,4,5], the current evidence is constrained by major methodological limitations. In the sports context, EEG-NFB has been increasingly applied to enhance attentional focus, optimize sensorimotor rhythm regulation, and support stress management during competition. Studies have reported improvements in accuracy (e.g., archery, shooting), faster reaction times, and decision-making in football, highlighting its potential to strengthen both cognitive and motor domains in athletes [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Studies differ in protocol duration, targeted brain regions, and outcome measures, while most lack rigorous sham or double-blind designs, raising concerns about expectancy and placebo effects [18,19 ]. Such inconsistencies limit the attribution of NFB-induced changes to genuine neurophysiological mechanisms. To address these challenges, the CRED-nf checklist [20] established standards for study design and reporting, including preregistration, detailed feedback specifications, sham controls (active and inert), and transparent reporting of outcomes. However, adherence remains inconsistent, and many studies still rely on closed-source analysis pipelines. Proprietary implementations of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) parameters--such as window length or artifact rejection--are rarely disclosed, undermining reproducibility [21,22]. Notably, none of the reviewed studies employed modern spectral parameterization approaches, such as Fitting Oscillations & One-Over-F (FOOOF [23]), which separate periodic and aperiodic components to strengthen neurophysiological validity. This methodological gap is especially critical for sports applications, where subtle cognitive and performance-related changes demand precise measurement [2,24]. Finally, the drive for ecological validity--defined as the extent to which experimental findings can be generalized to real-world contexts--has led to portable EEG systems and semi-natural group protocols [13,25,26,27]. These approaches aim to capture cognitive and neurophysiological processes in more authentic environments, such as practice and competition, thereby increasing the applicability of research findings. While promising, they also introduce procedural challenges, including greater susceptibility to noise and artifacts, which require careful methodological control. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically map methodological and analytical gaps in EEG-NFB studies, evaluate the current state of interventions in both athletes and non-athletes, and identify priorities for advancing transparency, reproducibility, and neurophysiological validity in future research. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Protocol and Registration This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR [28]). The protocol was developed a priori, following PRISMA-P guidelines [29] and methodological recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute [30]. To ensure transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor, the review was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF). The protocol defines the eligibility criteria, outlines procedures for study selection, data extraction, and synthesis, and specifies the use of Rayyan software for independent screening by two reviewers [31]. The complete protocol is publicly accessible under the DOI registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XCUWY (accessed on 22 October 2025). 2.2. Eligibility Criteria The research question was developed using the PCC framework--Population, Concept, and Context [30]. The target population included adults >= 18 years, divided into three groups: (i) elite athletes, training and competing at professional or international levels, with weekly physical activity typically >9 METs (vigorous-intensity [32]; (ii) amateur athletes, engaged in regular but non-professional sports practice, typically 3-9 METs; and (iii) non-athletes, healthy adults without organized sport participation, typically <3 METs. These classifications were based on the Compendium of Physical Activities [32]. The concept focused on EEG-NFB as the primary intervention. Only studies reporting objective neurophysiological or cognitive outcomes were eligible (e.g., event-related potentials (ERP), quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (LORETA); or validated measures of attention, working memory, reaction time). Studies based solely on self-reported questionnaires or satisfaction ratings were excluded. The context included sports and laboratory settings. Eligible studies could come from any country, year, or language, provided full-text access and accurate translation into English or Portuguese. Only original empirical studies were included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, cohort, observational, qualitative, or mixed-method studies with explicit NFB interventions. Exclusions comprised systematic reviews, meta-analyses, theoretical papers, editorials, and conference abstracts--although these were screened for additional references. Studies were excluded if they: (i) involved clinical populations, (ii) failed to report detailed NFB protocols or outcomes, (iii) assessed only non-specific effects (e.g., expectancy, placebo), or (iv) lacked peer-review. Full-text availability was mandatory. 2.3. Information Sources and Search Strategy The research team conducted an extensive literature search across seven academic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and LILACS. Both controlled vocabulary terms (MeSH, DeCS) and free-text terms were used to link NFB with EEG, cognitive performance, ERP, qEEG, and LORETA. Boolean operators and truncations were adapted for each database. To minimize publication bias, grey literature sources were also searched, including Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Trip Database, and Dissertations Citation Index. Reference lists of included studies were hand-searched to identify additional articles. No restrictions were applied regarding year, language, or country of origin, provided accurate translation could be ensured. References were deduplicated in EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics), and records were screened independently by two reviewers using Rayyan [31]. The complete database search strategies, including the detailed list of keywords applied, are reported in the Supplementary Materials (Appendix S1). 2.4. Study Selection Process The Rayyan system (Qatar Computing Research Institute) was employed to conduct the study selection process in two phases. In the first phase, two independent reviewers (RZ and TB) screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. In the second phase, the same reviewers conducted a full-text evaluation of studies that passed the initial screening. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, and when consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer (IBB) acted as arbitrator. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies were manually reviewed to identify further eligible records. The entire selection process was documented through the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram, including reasons for exclusion during the full-text stage. To enhance methodological rigor, the procedure underwent independent double verification, thereby ensuring transparency, reliability, and reproducibility. 2.5. Data Charting Process and Data Items The first reviewer (RZ) independently performed the data charting process using a structured extraction form based on the PCC framework. A second reviewer (TB) verified all extracted data, while the first reviewer (RZ) and a third reviewer (IBB) resolved any discrepancies through discussion. The extraction process included study characteristics (authors, year, country, study design), population details (type of participants: elite athletes, amateur athletes, or non-athletes; age range; gender distribution; and level of competition), characteristics of the NFB intervention (protocol type, frequency band, number and duration of sessions), neurophysiological assessment tools (ERP, qEEG, LORETA), cognitive outcome measures, and methodological aspects. In addition, although not pre-specified in the initial charting form, all studies were systematically reviewed for the use of modern spectral parameterization methods (e.g., FOOOF [23]) and for transparency and reproducibility practices (e.g., pre-registration, data sharing, code availability, detailed reporting of analysis pipelines; cf. [21,22]). These exploratory assessments were included to provide further insight into the analytical and methodological rigor of NFB research in sport. The evaluation also focused on methodological strength through an assessment of sham controls (none, Active, or Inert), blinding procedures, and statistical approaches. Following [19,33,34], sham controls were operationally categorized as Active Sham--non-contingent but plausible feedback (e.g., pre-recorded EEG or randomized signals) --and Inert Sham, fully decoupled from participants' physiological activity (e.g., random tones or pre-recorded videos). This classification allows for a clearer evaluation of methodological rigor, reducing the risk of conflating non-specific engagement effects with genuine NFB-related changes. A summary of the distribution of sham control types across studies is presented in the Section 3 (Figure 4) to providing a visual overview of this critical methodological factor. When any essential information was unclear or unavailable, the corresponding study authors were contacted by email. However, response rates were limited, and missing data were coded as "not reported". Finally, the entire process was piloted on five studies to ensure consistency and clarity in the data extraction procedure, with particular emphasis on identifying the presence and type of sham controls as a critical methodological factor. 2.6. Synthesis of Results The research findings will be summarized in tables that organize data by study design, population type (elite athletes, amateur athletes, non-athletes), and characteristics of the NFB protocols, as well as neurophysiological and cognitive outcomes. A narrative synthesis will be conducted to highlight methodological trends, outcome patterns, and evidence gaps across studies. The synthesis will remain descriptive in nature, consistent with the scoping review methodology. The analysis will also quantify the frequency of key methodological variables, including the presence and type of sham controls, blinding procedures, and EEG analysis techniques (e.g., qEEG, ERP, LORETA). These distributions will be reported to provide a structured overview of methodological rigor and transparency across the included studies. 3. Results The scoping review analyzed 48 studies that examined EEG-based NFB interventions among athletes competing in various sports and at different competitive levels. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1) illustrates the study selection process from identification through screening to final inclusion. The included studies investigated athletes from a wide range of sports (e.g., archery, golf, gymnastics, swimming, soccer, judo, and chess) across multiple countries and competitive levels (elite, amateur, and novice). The study characteristics are summarized in Table 1, which provides detailed information on authors, publication years, sample sizes, demographic characteristics, sport disciplines, study designs, electrode placement protocols, control group types, outcome measures, and reported intervention effects. The extensive information presented in Table 1 serves as the primary reference for understanding the diversity and methodological scope of the included studies. 3.1. Selection of Sources of Evidence The initial database search retrieved 3516 records, supplemented by an additional 240 records from gray literature and other sources. After removing 1737 duplicates, 1779 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 1729 records were excluded based on eligibility criteria. The full-text evaluation was conducted for 70 articles, of which 48 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. This corresponds to approximately 2.6% of the initially retrieved records. The detailed selection process is presented in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1). Reasons for full-text exclusion are documented in Supplementary Materials (Appendix S2), covering the 22 excluded studies. Additionally, the distribution of electrode sites and frequency bands across the included studies is summarized in Figure 2. Reason for exclusion at full-text stage: Reason 1. Studies involving clinical populations (e.g., neurological or psychiatric diagnoses). Reason 2. Studies lacking methodological detail on the neurofeedback protocol or outcomes. Reason 3. Studies relying exclusively on subjective outcomes (e.g., self-perceived performance). Reason 4. Non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g., conference abstracts, opinion articles, technical reports). Reason 5. Full text not available or no response from corresponding authors after three contact attempts (within a three-week period). The study selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [67], as illustrated in Figure 1. 3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies The included studies were conducted across 18 countries, with Poland contributing the largest share (24%), followed by Iran (18%) and Taiwan (12%). Other countries, including Germany, Portugal, and Canada, provided smaller but noteworthy contributions (Figure 3A,B). In terms of research design, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) accounted for 60% of the studies, followed by quasi-experimental designs (29%) and case or single-subject approaches (11%) (Figure 3 C). Most studies recruited participants ranging from novice to elite athletes, with males representing 77% of the total sample. Control group strategies showed considerable variability: Active Sham conditions were used in 29% of studies, passive controls with no intervention in 33%, and no-control designs (e.g., pre-post or single-subject studies) in 38% (Figure 4 and Figure 5). As shown in Figure 6, SMR-based training (12-15 Hz) was the most frequently applied protocol, followed by theta/beta and alpha-based modulation. This pattern underscores the predominance of SMR approaches in sports-related EEG-NFB research, reflecting their established association with motor control and attentional regulation. At the same time, the relatively lower prevalence of infra-low frequency, mu, and customized alpha- or ERP-based protocols highlights emerging directions that remain underrepresented in the current literature. 3.3. Neurophysiological Outcomes Neurophysiological outcomes were reported in 52% (n = 25) of the included studies. The reported effects encompassed EEG spectral power changes, such as sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) enhancement at Cz (located at the vertex of the scalp, approximately over the sensorimotor cortex), and at C3 and C4 (positioned over the left and right primary cortices, respectively). Other studies examined ERPs, particularly components such as P3 and N2 [48], as well as coherence and connectivity measures derived from source localization techniques, including LORETA and sLORETA [37]. Studies that combined neurophysiological measures with behavioral assessments frequently reported associations between EEG changes and improvements in motor or cognitive performance [36,39]. The distribution of studies focusing on neurophysiological outcomes, compared with those relying exclusively on behavioral or cognitive assessments, is illustrated in Figure 7. 3.4. Cognitive Outcomes Cognitive outcomes were reported in 89% (n = 43) of the included studies. The research primarily targeted three cognitive domains: attention, working memory, and executive functions. These were assessed through standardized paradigms such as inhibition tasks (e.g., Stroop test), working memory updating (e.g., N-back task), and cognitive flexibility/set-shifting (e.g., Oddball paradigm). Standardized neuropsychological assessments--particularly the N-back task, Stroop test, and Oddball paradigm--were frequently complemented with sport-specific tasks, including reaction time tests in archery or golf putting performance, to evaluate cognitive improvements in real-world contexts. Overall, the evidence indicated consistent cognitive benefits of neurofeedback training. For instance, studies highlighted improvements in attentional control [42,51], while others reported enhanced stress regulation and self-perceived mental readiness [35,57 ]. 3.5. Methodological Features The increasing focus on methodological rigor is reflected in the gradual adoption of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Nevertheless, only 29% of studies (n = 14) included Active Sham feedback as a placebo control [38,64]. The majority of these Active Sham protocols (n = 15) relied on pre-recorded EEG data or randomized signals, which may still introduce unspecific neuroplastic changes [ 18,19]. Only three studies applied Inert Sham protocols that fully separated neural activity from feedback [44,45,46], representing the methodological gold standard for identifying neurofeedback-specific effects. Overall, approximately 40% of studies did not implement any sham control, relying on passive or no-control designs. Beyond sham design, most studies did not report participant or evaluator blinding, and long-term follow-up assessments were rare (exceptions include [39,59]). These limitations further underscore the need for methodological consistency and transparency in EEG-NFB research. Another critical issue concerns EEG spectral analysis. None of the 48 included studies applied modern spectral parameterization techniques such as FOOOF; [23]. Instead, all relied on conventional band-power approaches based on fixed frequency bands (e.g., SMR, alpha, theta, beta), typically calculated via Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Some studies applied visual or manual inspection of EEG signals, and reporting of spectral analysis parameters was often incomplete. This reliance on traditional band-power metrics prevents separation of periodic oscillatory activity from the aperiodic 1/f background, which may bias the interpretation of NFB effects. This methodological heterogeneity underscores the challenges of synthesizing evidence across studies and highlights the importance of adopting standardized protocols and transparent reporting practices. Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate these methodological inconsistencies, emphasizing the lack of sham standardization, limited neurophysiological outcome reporting, and the predominance of outdated spectral approaches. 3.6. Transparency and Reproducibility The analysis of the 48 included studies revealed a systemic absence of open science practices. None of the studies provided data sharing, code availability, or preregistration. A single exception was noted in [62], which reported protocol approval by a local ethics committee prior to data collection; however, this does not constitute preregistration in the open science sense, as it lacked public accessibility and methodological detail. Although most studies described their training protocols (e.g., electrode sites, frequency bands, session structures), independent replication remained unfeasible due to reliance on proprietary hardware/software and closed-source algorithms. In addition, statistical transparency was limited: the majority of studies reported only p-values, with rare mentions of effect sizes or confidence intervals, thereby constraining interpretability. With respect to EEG analysis, all studies relied on traditional band-power metrics in fixed frequency bands. None applied modern spectral parameterization methods such as FOOOF [23], which separate periodic oscillatory activity from the aperiodic 1/f background. This reliance on fixed-band approaches--often embedded in commercial systems--further restricts the neurophysiological validity of reported outcomes. Taken together, these findings align with concerns raised by [21,22], highlighting the urgent need for open data, shared code, preregistration, and transparent reporting of analytic pipelines to ensure reproducibility and credibility in EEG-NFB research. 4. Discussion This scoping review synthesized 48 studies examining EEG-based NFB interventions across athletic and non-athletic populations. The evidence generally supports the potential of NFB to modulate neurophysiological activity and improve cognitive and performance-related outcomes. However, the review also exposes substantial methodological heterogeneity and reproducibility gaps that complicate interpretation and cross-study comparison. The following sections discuss these findings considering previous literature, highlighting consistent trends, discrepancies, and future research needs. 4.1. Neurophysiological and Cognitive Outcomes Across the analyzed studies, NFB training most frequently targeted SMR and alpha bands, with reported increases in EEG power often corresponding to improvements in reaction time, attention, and motor precision. These findings align with early work by [2,3], who demonstrated that modulating SMR and alpha activity could facilitate motor preparation and cognitive stability. Similarly, more recent studies--such as [36,37]--confirmed enhanced motor accuracy and balance following SMR- and theta/beta-based training, supporting the link between neural regulation and performance optimization. Nevertheless, not all evidence converges. Some experiments, such as [ 43], reported null effects on reaction time or inconsistent EEG modulation, suggesting that task specificity, participant expertise, and feedback parameters critically influence outcomes. Cognitive measures--particularly attention, working memory, and executive control--were the most frequently improved domains, in line with systematic syntheses by [4,5]. Yet, the diversity of testing paradigms (e.g., Stroop, N-back, Oddball) and the predominance of short-term assessments limit the generalization of these results. Overall, the current evidence indicates that EEG-NFB can induce measurable neural and behavioral adaptations, though magnitude and persistence remain uncertain due to methodological inconsistency. 4.2. The Role of Sham Controls A central concern identified in this review involves the design and implementation of sham controls. As defined in Section 2.5, Active Sham refers to non-contingent but plausible feedback, whereas Inert Sham is fully decoupled from participants' physiological activity. Only 29% of studies employed active sham feedback, and a mere 6% applied inert sham protocols--the methodological gold standard for isolating true NFB-specific effects. This distinction aligns with the CRED-nf recommendations [20] and prior methodological reviews [33], which emphasize the need for transparent reporting of sham procedures in EEG-NFB research. These proportions mirror the shortcomings previously highlighted by [19], who emphasized that expectancy and engagement effects may inflate apparent efficacy in NFB research. The scarcity of inert sham conditions observed here suggests that many studies risk conflating neurophysiological change with non-specific psychological factors. Furthermore, a large subset of studies lacked participant or assessor blinding and relied solely on pre-post comparisons. Such designs increase susceptibility to placebo effects and Type III statistical errors, as discussed by [34]. When properly implemented, double-blind randomized trials--such as those by [35] or [38]--demonstrated more controlled evidence for EEG modulation and performance enhancement. Future investigations should therefore integrate both active and inert sham conditions, coupled with rigorous blinding, to strengthen internal validity and permit clearer attribution of causal effects. 4.3. Electrode and Frequency Variability in Neurofeedback Protocols The diversity of electrode montages and targeted frequency bands across the reviewed studies reflects the absence of standardized NFB protocols in sport settings. Central sites (Cz, C3, C4) were predominant in SMR-based interventions, consistent with their functional relevance to motor preparation and attention. However, frontal and parietal placements targeting alpha, beta, or theta activity were also frequent, often motivated by exploratory aims rather than established neurophysiological models. Comparable variability was reported by [2,4], who noted that inconsistency in training loci and spectral ranges impedes replication and cumulative synthesis. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of EEG changes and performance outcomes. Even when similar behavioral gains were reported, underlying neural mechanisms may differ due to protocol divergence. Standardized reporting through frameworks such as the CRED-nf checklist [20] and adoption of modern spectral parameterization tools like FOOOF [23] would allow more accurate separation of oscillatory and aperiodic components, thereby improving cross-study comparability and theoretical precision. 4.4. Ecological Validity and Implementation Challenges Recent studies increasingly integrate portable EEG systems and field-based protocols to enhance ecological validity and bridge laboratory findings with real-world athletic contexts. Investigations by [25,26] illustrate this trend, demonstrating that brief, on-site SMR training sessions can positively influence golf and soccer performance. These developments parallel broader efforts in applied neuroscience to situate cognitive training within authentic performance environments. However, ecological validity introduces methodological complexity. Field-based EEG is inherently vulnerable to motion artifacts, environmental noise, and fatigue effects that can compromise data quality and mask the specific contribution of NFB. Moreover, most reviewed studies relied on short-term pre-post designs without longitudinal follow-up, precluding conclusions about retention or transfer of NFB benefits. Sustained improvements, as observed in long-term follow-ups by [59], remain rare but essential for verifying whether NFB-induced adaptations persist beyond initial training phases. Future research should therefore combine controlled laboratory paradigms with extended, ecologically grounded interventions, using multimodal outcome measures (EEG, qEEG, ERP, behavioral, and psychophysiological indices) to achieve comprehensive evaluation. 4.5. Considerations for Future Research To consolidate the evidence base for EEG-NFB in sport, future investigations must emphasize methodological rigor, analytical transparency, and ecological realism. Randomized controlled trials incorporating both active and inert sham conditions are imperative to distinguish genuine neurofeedback effects from non-specific influences. Protocol standardization regarding electrode placement, targeted frequency bands, and session parameters will facilitate replication and meta-analytic synthesis. Equally crucial is the transition toward open-science practices. None of the reviewed studies preregistered protocols or shared data and analysis code, reflecting a broader reproducibility gap in applied neuroscience [21,22]. Adopting preregistration, data sharing, and transparent reporting of analytic pipelines will markedly enhance credibility and cumulative progress. Aligned with the CRED-nf checklist [20], future EEG-NFB studies should explicitly preregister core components of their experimental design, including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcomes, session parameters, and planned statistical analyses. Minimal datasets--such as pre-processed EEG spectra, behavioral measures, and analytic scripts--should be made openly available in public repositories (e.g., OSF, Zenodo, OpenNeuro). Moreover, the transparent reporting of key signal-processing parameters (e.g., FFT settings, filter characteristics, artifact rejection thresholds, and reinforcement schedules) will facilitate methodological reproducibility and cross-study comparability. Collectively, these practices will transform general calls for transparency into concrete, actionable standards for advancing open science in EEG-NFB research. Finally, research should expand participant diversity--addressing gender balance and sport variety--and include longitudinal follow-ups to determine the durability and ecological transfer of NFB-induced performance gains. By integrating these methodological and conceptual refinements, future studies can transform EEG-NFB from a promising experimental approach into a reproducible, evidence-based tool for optimizing human performance. Another potential methodological concern involves the partial overlap of samples across studies conducted by the same research groups (e.g., [46,48,57,60,61]). Such overlap may inflate the apparent evidence base and reduce the effective sample diversity, particularly when similar participant cohorts are repeatedly analyzed under slightly modified protocols. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the overall findings, as it may bias outcome generalizability and overestimate the robustness of specific training effects. Future reviews should therefore apply stricter data-source screening procedures and explicitly report instances of potential sample duplication to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of evidence synthesis in EEG-NFB research. 5. Conclusions EEG-based NFB demonstrates meaningful potential to enhance both neurophysiological regulation and cognitive-motor performance in athletes. Yet, this promise remains constrained by inconsistent methodology, limited sham control, and insufficient transparency. The field now requires rigorously designed, double-blind randomized trials using validated sham procedures and standardized spectral analyses to establish causal validity. Future progress depends equally on adopting open-science principles--preregistration, data and code sharing, and clear protocol reporting--to ensure replicability and comparability across studies. Long-term, ecologically valid designs will clarify whether short-term NFB effects translate into sustainable performance benefits. Strengthening methodological rigor and transparency will not only improve scientific reproducibility but also enable NFB to fulfill its potential as a practical tool in sport neuroscience. Supplementary Materials The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bioengineering12111202/s1. Author Contributions Conceptualization, R.M.G.Z.; methodology, R.M.G.Z. and D.T.B.; validation, R.M.G.Z., D.T.B. and I.B.-B.; formal analysis, R.M.G.Z.; investigation, R.M.G.Z.; resources, J.M.C.; data curation, R.M.G.Z.; writing--original draft preparation, R.M.G.Z.; writing--review and editing, J.M.C., D.T.B., I.B.-B. and S.N.d.J.; visualization, R.M.G.Z.; supervision, J.M.C., I.B.-B. and S.N.d.J.; project administration, J.M.C.; funding acquisition, I.B.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding This research was funded by the European Union's Horizon Europe Programme, Grant Agreement No. 101089757--SEA-EU 2.0: The European University of the Seas Alliance navigating towards modern and co-transformative intercampus life; people-driven, planet-friendly, and knowledge-based progress for all, funded by the European Union. Additional financial support from the University of Gdansk is gratefully acknowledged. Institutional Review Board Statement Not applicable. This study is a scoping review that analyzed and synthesized data from previously published studies; therefore, ethical approval was not required. Informed Consent Statement Not applicable. This study did not involve humans or animals. Data Availability Statement All data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article and its Supplementary Materials. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence tools exclusively to support language clarity and text organization. All scientific content, methodological design, analysis, and interpretation are the sole responsibility of the authors. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References 1. Schomer, D.L.; Da Silva, F.H.L. (Eds.) Niedermeyer's Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields, 7th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] 2. Gruzelier, J.H. EEG-neurofeedback for optimising performance. I: A review of cognitive and affective outcome in healthy participants. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 44, 124-141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 3. Hammond, D.C. What is Neurofeedback: An Update. J. Neurother. 2011, 15, 305-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 4. Tosti, B.; Corrado, S.; Mancone, S.; Di Libero, T.; Carissimo, C.; Cerro, G.; Rodio, A.; Furtado da Silva, V.; Coimbra, D.R.; Andrade, A.; et al. Neurofeedback training protocols in sports: A systematic review of recent advances in performance, anxiety, and emotional regulation. Brain Sci. 2024, 14, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Rydzik, L.; Wsacz, W.; Ambrozy, T.; Javdanekh, N.; Rydzak, K.; Koparska, M. The use of neurofeedback in sports training: Systematic review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 660. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Landers, D.M.; Petruzzello, S.J.; Salazar, W.; Crews, D.J.; Kubitz, K.A.; Gannon, T.L.; Han, M. The influence of electrocortical biofeedback on performance in pre-elite archers. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991, 23, 123-129. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 7. Paktas, Y. The effect of neurofeedback training on the perceptual-motor abilities of basketball athletes. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2021, 15, 791-793. [Google Scholar] 8. Golas, A.; Nitychoruk, M.; Zak, M.; Kowalczyk, M.; Ignatjeva, A.; Maszczyk, A. Optimizing visual processing efficiency using neurofeedback training in judo athletes. Arch. Budo Sci. Martial Arts Extrem. Sports 2019, 15, 105-112. [Google Scholar] 9. Krawczyk, M.; Kowalczyk, M.; Zak, M.; Daros, K.; Gozdowski, P. Zmiany aktywnosci fal mozgowych pod wplywem treningu neurofeedback u zawodnikow judo. Ogrody Nauk. I Szt. 2019, 9, 388-399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 10. Maszczyk, A.; Dobrakowski, P.; Nitychoruk, M.; Zak, M.; Kowalczyk, M.; Toborek, M. The Effect of Neurofeedback Training on the Visual Processing Efficiency in Judo Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2020, 71, 219-227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 11. Rijken, N.H.; Soer, R.; de Maar, E.; Prins, H.; Teeuw, W.B.; Peuscher, J.; Oosterveld, F.G. Increasing Performance of Professional Soccer Players and Elite Track and Field Athletes with Peak Performance Training and Biofeedback: A Pilot Study. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2016, 41, 421-430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 12. Liu, Y.S.; Subramaniam, S.C.H.; Sourina, O.; Shah, E.; Chua, J.; Ivanov, K. Neurofeedback training for rifle shooters to improve cognitive ability. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW), Chester, UK, 20-22 September 2017; pp. 186-189. [Google Scholar] 13. Mikicin, M.; Mroz, A.; Karczewska-Lindinger, M.; Malinowska, K.; Mastalerz, A.; Kowalczyk, M. Effect of the Neurofeedback-EEG Training During Physical Exercise on the Range of Mental Work Performance and Individual Physiological Parameters in Swimmers. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2020, 45, 49-55. [Google Scholar ] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Assadourian, S.; Branco Lopes, A.; Saj, A. Improvement in peripheral visual attentional performance in professional soccer players following a single neurofeedback training session. Rev. Neuropsychol. 2022, 14, 133-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 15. Lo, L.C.; Hatfield, B.D.; Janjigian, K.; Wang, Y.S.; Fong, D.Y.; Hung, T.M. The Effect of Left Temporal EEG Neurofeedback Training on Cerebral Cortical Activity and Precision Cognitive-Motor Performance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2024, 96, 486-496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Hosseini, F.; Norouzi, E. Effect of neurofeedback training on self-talk and performance in elite and non-elite volleyball players. Med. Dello Sport 2017, 70, 344-353. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 17. Salimnejad, Z.; Zandi, H.; Arsham, S. Effect of Bio-Neural Feedback Exercises on the Performance of Female Rugby Players. Int. J. Mot. Control Learn. 2019, 1, 10-18. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 18. Bussalb, A.; Congedo, M.; Barthelemy, Q.; Ojeda, D.; Acquaviva, E.; Delorme, R.; Mayaud, L. Clinical and experimental factors influencing the efficacy of neurofeedback in ADHD: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychiatry 2019, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 19. Thibault, R.; Raz, A. The psychology of neurofeedback: Clinical intervention even if applied placebo. Am. Psychol. 2017, 72, 679-688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 20. Ros, T.; Enriquez-Geppert, S.; Zotev, V.; Young, K.D.; Wood, G.; Whitfield-Gabrieli, S.; Wan, F.; Vuilleumier, P.; Vialatte, F.; Van De Ville, D.; et al. Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist). Brain 2020, 143, 1674-1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 21. Nichols, T.; Das, S.; Eickhoff, S.; Evans, A.; Glatard, T.; Hanke, M.; Kriegeskorte, N.; Milham, M.; Poldrack, R.; Poline, J.-B.; et al. Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI. Nat. Neurosci. 2017, 20, 299-303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 22. Poldrack, R.; Baker, C.; Durnez, J.; Gorgolewski, K.; Matthews, P.; Munafo, M.; Nichols, T.; Poline, J.-B.; Vul, E.; Yarkoni, T. Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2017, 18, 115-126. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 23. Donoghue, T.; Haller, M.; Peterson, E.; Varma, P.; Sebastian, P.; Gao, R.; Noto, T.; Lara, A.; Wallis, J.; Knight, R.; et al. Parameterizing neural power spectra into periodic and aperiodic components. Nat. Neurosci. 2020, 23, 1655-1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Ring, C.; Cooke, A.; Kavussanu, M.; McIntyre, D.; Masters, R. Investigating the efficacy of neurofeedback training for expediting expertise and excellence in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015, 16, 118-127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 25. van Boxtel, G.J.M.; Denissen, A.; de Groot, J.A.; Neleman, M.S.; Vellema, J.; Hart de Ruijter, E.M. Alpha Neurofeedback Training in Elite Soccer Players Trained in Groups. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2024, 49, 589-602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [ PubMed] 26. Wu, J.H.; Chueh, T.Y.; Yu, C.L.; Wang, K.P.; Kao, S.C.; Gentili, R.J.; Hatfield, B.D.; Hung, T.M. Effect of a single session of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback training on the putting performance of professional golfers. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2024, 34, e14540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 27. Wu, J.H.; Tu, Y.C.; Chang, C.Y.; Chueh, T.Y.; Gentili, R.J.; Hatfield, B.D.; Hung, T.M. A single session of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback enhances long-game performance in professional golfers. Biol. Psychol. 2024, 192, 108844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 28. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O'Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467-473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 29. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Group, P.-P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 30. Peters, M.D.J.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2119-2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 31. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan--A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 32. Ainsworth, B.E.; Haskell, W.L.; Herrmann, S.D.; Meckes, N.; Bassett, D.R., Jr.; Tudor-Locke, C.; Greer, J.L.; Vezina, J.; Whitt-Glover, M.C.; Leon, A.S. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: A second update of codes and MET values. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1575-1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 33. Rogala, J.; Jurewicz, K.; Paluch, K.; Kublik, E.; Cetnarski, R.; Wrobel, A. The Do's and Don'ts of Neurofeedback Training: A Review of the Controlled Studies Using Healthy Adults. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed ] 34. Trullinger, M.; Novian, A.; Russell-Chapin, L.; Pradhan, D. Perspectives on Type III Statistical Errors: Exaggerating the Effects of Placebo in Neurofeedback. NeuroRegulation 2019, 6, 38-41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 35. Dekker, M.K.; van den Berg, B.R.; Denissen, A.J.; Sitskoorn, M.M.; van Boxtel, G.J. Feasibility of eyes open alpha power training for mental enhancement in elite gymnasts. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 1550-1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Cheng, M.Y.; Huang, C.J.; Chang, Y.K.; Koester, D.; Schack, T.; Hung, T.M. Sensorimotor Rhythm Neurofeedback Enhances Golf Putting Performance. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015, 37, 626-636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 37. Maszczyk, A.; Golas, A.; Pietraszewski, P.; Kowalczyk, M.; Cieszczyk, P.; Kochanowicz, A.; Smolka, W.; Zajac, A. Neurofeedback for the enhancement of dynamic balance of judokas. Biol. Sport 2018, 35, 99-102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 38. Kober, S.E.; Ninaus, M.; Witte, M.; Buchrieser, F.; Grossinger, D.; Fischmeister, F.P.S.; Neuper, C.; Wood, G. Triathletes are experts in self-regulating physical activity--But what about self-regulating neural activity? Biol. Psychol. 2022, 173, 108406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 39. Afrash, S.; Saemi, E.; Gong, A.; Doustan, M. Neurofeedback training and motor learning: The enhanced sensorimotor rhythm protocol is better or the suppressed alpha or the suppressed mu? BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 93. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 40. Chen, T.-T.; Wang, K.-P.; Chang, W.-H.; Kao, C.-W.; Hung, T.-M. Effects of the function-specific instruction approach to neurofeedback training on frontal midline theta waves and golf putting performance. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2022, 61, 102211. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 41. Mottola, F.; Blanchfield, A.; Hardy, J.; Cooke, A. EEG neurofeedback improves cycling time to exhaustion. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2021, 55, 101944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 42. Pourbehbahani, Z.; Saemi, E.; Cheng, M.Y.; Dehghan, M.R. Both Sensorimotor Rhythm Neurofeedback and Self-Controlled Practice Enhance Motor Learning and Performance in Novice Golfers. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 43. Mirifar, A.; Keil, A.; Beckmann, J.; Ehrlenspiel, F. No Effects of Neurofeedback of Beta Band Components on Reaction Time Performance. J. Cogn. Enhanc. 2019, 3, 251-260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 44. Wang, K.P.; Frank, C.; Hung, T.M.; Schack, T. Neurofeedback training: Decreases in Mu rhythm lead to improved motor performance in complex visuomotor skills. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42 , 20860-20871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Horvath, D.; Negyesi, J.; Racz, M.; Gyori, T.; Matics, Z.; Puskin, A.; Csipor, J.; Racz, L. Feasibility of a novel neurofeedback system: A parallel randomized single-blinded pilot study. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 17353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [ PubMed] 46. Wang, K.P.; Cheng, M.Y.; Elbanna, H.; Schack, T. A new EEG neurofeedback training approach in sports: The effects function-specific instruction of Mu rhythm and visuomotor skill performance. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1273186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. Arns, M.; Kleinnijenhuis, M.; Fallahpour, K.; Breteler, R. Golf Performance Enhancement and Real-Life Neurofeedback Training Using Personalized Event-Locked EEG Profiles. J. Neurother. 2008, 11, 11-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 48. Ziolkowski, A.; Graczyk, M.; Strzalkowska, A.; Wlodarczyk, P.; Zaranska, B. Neuronal, cognitive and social indicators for the control of aggressive behaviors in sport. Acta Neuropsychol. 2012 , 10, 537-546. [Google Scholar] 49. Graczyk, M.; Pachalska, M.; Ziolkowski, A.; Manko, G.; Lukaszewska, B.; Kochanowicz, K.; Mirski, A.; Kropotov, I.D. Neurofeedback training for peak performance. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2014, 21, 871-875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 50. Kao, S.-C.; Huang, C.-J.; Hung, T.-M. Neurofeedback Training Reduces Frontal Midline Theta and Improves Putting Performance in Expert Golfers. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2014, 26, 271-286. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 51. Mikicin, M.; Orzechowski, G.; Jurewicz, K.; Paluch, K.; Kowalczyk, M.; Wrobel, A. Brain-training for physical performance: A study of EEG-neurofeedback and alpha relaxation training in athletes. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 2015, 75, 434-445. [ Google Scholar] 52. Mikicin, M. State of mind as a subjective mental sensation results from objective brain activity following neurofeedback-EEG and relaxation trainings. Acta Neuropsychol. 2016, 14, 17-33. [ Google Scholar] 53. Szczypinska, M.; Mikicin, M. Does attention training induce any changes in the level of the selected cognitive processes in handball players? J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2019, 19, 1445-1452. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 54. Domingos, C.; Alves, C.; Sousa, E.; Rosa, A.; Pereira, J. Does Neurofeedback Training Improve Performance in Athletes? NeuroRegulation 2020, 7, 8-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 55. Domingos, C.; da Silva Caldeira, H.; Miranda, M.; Melicio, F.; Rosa, A.C.; Pereira, J.G. The Influence of Noise in the Neurofeedback Training Sessions in Student Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13223. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [PubMed] 56. Domingos, C.; Peralta, M.; Prazeres, P.; Nan, W.; Rosa, A.; Pereira, J.G. Session frequency matters in neurofeedback training of athletes. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2021, 46, 195-204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Domingos, C.; Silva, C.M.D.; Antunes, A.; Prazeres, P.; Esteves, I.; Rosa, A.C. The Influence of an Alpha Band Neurofeedback Training in Heart Rate Variability in Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 58. Mikicin, M.; Orzechowski, G. Neuronal Activity in the Brain Changes During Exercise in Attention States, Warm-up, Submaximal Effort, and Recovery, After Neurofeedback-Eeg Training in Motion. Acta Neuropsychol. 2022, 20, 175-186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 59. Fuentes-Garcia, J.P.; Villafaina, S. Psychophysiological and Performance Effects of Biofeedback and Neurofeedback Interventions in a Top 100 Female Chess Player. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 60. Bakhtafrooz, S.; Kavyani, M.; Farsi, A.; Alboghebeish, S. The effect of infra low frequency-neurofeedback training on pistol shooting performance and attention in semi-skilled players. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2025, 19, 1487737. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 61. Paul, M.; Ganesan, S.; Sandhu, J.; Simon, J. Effect of sensory motor rhythm neurofeedback on psycho-physiological, electro-encephalographic measures and performance of archery players. Ibnosina J. Med. Biomed. Sci. 2012, 4, 32-39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 62. Rostami, R.; Sadeghi, H.; Karami, K.A.; Abadi, M.N.; Salamati, P. The Effects of Neurofeedback on the Improvement of Rifle Shooters' Performance. J. Neurother. 2012, 16, 264-269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 63. Strizhkova, O.; Cherapkina, L.; Strizhkova, T. Neurofeedback course applying of high skilled gymnasts in competitive period. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2012, 7, S185-S193. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 64. Christie, S.; Bertollo, M.; Werthner, P. The Effect of an Integrated Neurofeedback and Biofeedback Training Intervention on Ice Hockey Shooting Performance. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2020, 42, 34-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 65. Shokri, A.; Nosratabadi, M. Comparison of Biofeedback and Combined Interventions on Athlete's Performance. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2021, 46, 227-234. [Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] 66. Fardinia, M.; Shojaei, M.; Rahimi, A. The effect of neurofeedback training on the anxiety of elite female swimmers. Ann. Biol. Res. 2012, 3, 1020-1028. [Google Scholar] 67. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [ Google Scholar] [CrossRef] Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram showing the identification, screening, and inclusion of the studies included in this scoping review. * Records identified from the listed electronic databases. ** Records excluded after title and abstract screening. Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram showing the identification, screening, and inclusion of the studies included in this scoping review. * Records identified from the listed electronic databases. ** Records excluded after title and abstract screening. Figure 2. Distribution of electrode sites and frequency bands in studies using different neurofeedback protocols: (A) Active Sham neurofeedback (Table 1A); (B) Inert Sham neurofeedback (Table 1B); and (C) without Sham neurofeedback (Table 1C). Figure 2. Distribution of electrode sites and frequency bands in studies using different neurofeedback protocols: (A) Active Sham neurofeedback (Table 1A); (B) Inert Sham neurofeedback (Table 1B); and (C) without Sham neurofeedback (Table 1C). Figure 3. Characteristics of included studies: (A) Geographic distribution; (B) Country contributions by percentage; (C) Study design classification. Figure 3. Characteristics of included studies: (A) Geographic distribution; (B) Country contributions by percentage; (C) Study design classification. Figure 4. Proportion of studies using different sham control types (no sham, active sham, and inert sham). Figure 4. Proportion of studies using different sham control types (no sham, active sham, and inert sham). Figure 5. Distribution of control group types across included studies (sham feedback, passive control, no control). Figure 5. Distribution of control group types across included studies (sham feedback, passive control, no control). Figure 6. Neurofeedback protocols used across included studies (SMR, theta/beta, alpha, ILF, um rhythm, custom). Figure 6. Neurofeedback protocols used across included studies (SMR, theta/beta, alpha, ILF, um rhythm, custom). Figure 7. Proportion of studies reporting neurophysiological outcomes versus behavioral-only measures. Figure 7. Proportion of studies reporting neurophysiological outcomes versus behavioral-only measures. Table 1. (A) Studies with Active Sham. Presents studies with Active Sham (feedback from pre-recorded EEG or randomized signals). (B) Studies with Inert Sham. Shows studies that used feedback completely unrelated to EEG (Inert Sham). (C) Studies without Sham. Includes studies with no form of sham (only passive control groups or pre-post designs). Table 1. (A) Studies with Active Sham. Presents studies with Active Sham (feedback from pre-recorded EEG or randomized signals). (B) Studies with Inert Sham. Shows studies that used feedback completely unrelated to EEG (Inert Sham). (C) Studies without Sham. Includes studies with no form of sham (only passive control groups or pre-post designs). (A) Authors Sample Discipline & Level Protocol (Summary) Main Findings (Year) Significant improvement in RCT with 3 groups: performance in correct feedback, performance in incorrect (active the correct [6] 24 pre-elite Archery--pre-elite with sham), and control; feedback group; archers competition experience feedback modeled on performance slow cortical decrement in potential (SCP) incorrect paradigm feedback group; no significant change in control Double-blind RCT: Trend toward Alpha-band NFB vs. improved mental [35] 12 elite gymnasts Gymnastics--national/ Sham (active control balance, physical international with random beta-band shape, and feedback) reduced sleep complaints (ns) Increased putting RCT: SMR-based NFB accuracy, [36] 16 pre-elite/ Golf--national/ vs. Sham; pre-post consistency, and elite golfers international assessment of EEG and SMR power in NFB performance group; no change in control Significant gains Double-blind RCT: NFB in balance and Judo--national/ targeting th/b ratio b-power (p < [37] 18 elite judokas international vs. Sham; pre-post 0.05); no design significant change in sham group Double-blind Improved reaction quasi-experimental time, balance, 30 male Basketball--competitive design: generic NFB attention and [7] basketball athletes (level not protocol (EEG at Cz/ reduced anxiety players specified) Fz/parietal); control compared with with sham feedback controls (p < 0.05) Real NFB group: | Double-blind RCT: SMR power (p = 26 triathletes Triathlon--elite endurance SMR-NFB vs. Sham 0.02), | gray/ [38] (elite endurance) athletes (single session); EEG white matter and 25 controls and MRI metrics volumes (p < 0.001); no change in sham SMR & alpha RCT: SMR, alpha, mu groups: | putting [39] 64 novice golfers Golf--no prior competitive NFB vs. Sham; accuracy and EEG experience pre-post and power short- and retention tests long-term; mu group [?] sham FSI-NFB improved putting success 36 skilled Single-session RCT: and reduced FMT [40] golfers Golf--competitive amateurs FSI-NFB vs. TI vs. power (p < 0.05); Sham; FMT measured sham and TI showed no improvement NFB increased Crossover RCT: endurance (+30%, NFL-NFB vs. NFR-NFB p < 0.05), [41] 40 recreational Cycling--recreational vs. Sham; endurance frontal alpha cyclists and EEG metrics asymmetry, and HR assessed /RPE; no changes in lactate or cadence RCT: SMR-NFB vs. SMR-NFB group: | Sham; with putting accuracy self-controlled and (p < 0.05), | SMR [42] 40 novice golfers Golf--no prior experience yoked conditions; power, | pre-post follow-up self-control; no design additive effect beyond feedback RCT: TBR-NFB and No significant 38 male soccer SMR-NFB vs. Sham; 10 improvement in [43] players (14-23 y; Soccer--competitive sessions; outcomes: attention or >=4 y training) athletes attention, reaction reaction time; no time, EEG power EEG changes reported NFB group showed 12 elite judo RCT: b|/th| NFB vs. | reaction speed [8] athletes (Polish Judo--elite athletes Sham; 15 sessions and b power, | th Judo Assoc.) across 2 cycles power; sham group showed no change NFB group: | frontal RCT: high-alpha/theta high-alpha power; 24 recreational NFB vs. Sham; 3 no selective [24] golfers (all Golf--novice athletes sessions; putting performance male) accuracy task improvement; both groups performed similarly under pressure NFB group: | RCT: b|/th| NFB vs. reaction speed [9] 12 elite judokas Judo--elite national Sham; 15 sessions in and b power, | th 2 training cycles power; sham group unchanged RCT: b|/th| NFB vs. Sham; 15 sessions (2 NFB group: | cycles); system: reaction speed [10] 12 elite judokas Judo--elite international Deymed TruScan and b power, | th (Deymed power; no EEG Diagnostic-Hronov, change in sham Czech Republic) (B) Authors Sample Discipline & Level Protocol (Summary) Main Finding (Year) | Mu-NFB group: | RCT: | Mu-NFB vs. | Mu power, | MRE, Mu-NFB vs. Sham; | putting 30 novice golfers single session accuracy (p = [44] (15 F, 15 M) Golf--no prior experience (BioTrace+ system. 0.006); |Mu-NFB Mind Media, Herten, showed no The Netherlands); significant pre-post design changes; sham had no effect Single-blind RCT: SMR All groups /Theta NFB vs. Sham; improved 12 sessions over 4 cognitive [45] 31 young athletes Multi-sport--regular weeks (NeuroTracker performance (p < (multi-sport) training platform, 0.05), but no NeuroTrackerX Inc., between-group Montreal, QC, Canada) differences and no EEG changes FSI-NFB group: | putting accuracy (p = 0.013), Double-blind RCT: slight | Mu power 30 novice golfers FSI-NFB vs. TI-NFB (ns), positive [46] (14 F, 16 M) Golf--no prior experience vs. Sham; single Mu-error session (BioTrace+) correlation (r = 0.319, p = 0.043); TI and sham showed no changes (C) Authors Sample Discipline & Level Study Design Electrode & (Year) Protocol Quasi-experimental NFB blocks led to within-subject ABAB | putting success 6 amateur golfers design; same athletes (+25%) compared [47] (3 F, 3 M; avg Golf--amateur performed alternating to no-NFB blocks; handicap 12.3) blocks with and no sham group without event-locked included NFB (Fpz channel) Case study using alpha-NFB (C3/C4; Improved 1 elite javelin ProComp Infiniti, attention and [48] thrower (25 y, Javelin--elite Thought Technology social behavior; Olympic level) Ltd., Montreal, QC, | aggression; | Canada); ERP ERP changes and assessment (NOGO reaction time task) 1 elite javelin Single-subject | ERP amplitudes thrower (male, 25 Javelin--elite Olympic pre-post case study; and b power; [49] years old, athlete (2012 London Alpha/Low-Beta NFB improved Olympic-level Olympics participant) (C3/C4; ProComp cognitive control athlete) Infiniti); ERP and and emotional cognitive testing regulation Case study with 2/3 participants: multiple baseline | putting 3 expert golfers design (3 athletes); performance and | [50] (20-25 y, >10 y Golf--elite EEG at Fz (4-8 Hz) th power; mixed exp.) downregulation; results for NeuroTek training anxiety and (NeuroTek, Goshen, confidence KY, USA) EG showed | a and 35 Quasi-experimental: b1 power, faster semi-professional 20 NFB sessions reaction time, [51] athletes (25 M, Multi-sport--semi-pro (alpha, beta1, theta) improved mental 10 F; mixed vs. control; pre-post performance; sports) design control group unchanged; no sham group 73 student athletes (40 M, Quasi-experimental: EG: | SMR & b1, | 33 F; 18-25 y; 20 NFB sessions (SMR, th, | mental [52] swimming, Multi-sport--national-level beta1, theta) vs. readiness/ fencing, track & control; 7-month performance; CG: field, taekwondo, program no change judo) Soccer group: | alpha (5/7 EEG sites), | LF/HF, Quasi-experimental: | emotional 21 elite athletes Soccer & Track & alpha| NFB (C3/C4); 4 stability, [11] (soccer & track & Field--elite coached + daily home concentration & field; 16-38 y) sessions (5 weeks) sleep; Track & Field: | recovery (RESTQ), sustained LF/HF balance Single-subject design using b1/th NFB at P8 3/5 athletes (Emotiv 14-channel improved shooting 5 elite female Rifle Shooting--elite EEG System, San accuracy and [12] rifle shooters international Francisco, CA, USA); attention; 2 6-7 sessions; remained stable; attention and no adverse shooting accuracy effects reported assessed Quasi-experimental NFB (|SMR, |b1, |th, |b2) using DigiTrack Improved 18 elite handball system (ELMIKO attention, | players (9 M, 9 Medical, Warsaw, sensorimotor [53] F; 1st/2nd Handball--elite Poland); 20 sessions coordination, | league) over 10 weeks; peripheral outcomes: attention, perception sensorimotor (mainly in males) coordination, peripheral perception RCT: athletes-NFB, athletes-control, Athletes-NFB 45 participants non-athletes-NFB, group: | reaction (15 athletes, 15 Multi-sport--athletes & non-athletes-control; time and IAB; [54] non-athletes, 15 non-athletes 12-15 sessions; EEG non-athletes-NFB: controls; 18-44 at Cz (Vertex 823 | SAB/IAB; y) system--Meditron control groups: Eletronica, Sao no change Paulo, Brazil) Pre-post single-group design (no control); | mental work NFB at C3/C4 (TruScan capacity, | EMG 7 elite swimmers Flex 30); b (20-30 signal [13] (~20.6 y) Swimming--elite Hz) inhibition and consistency; no SMR enhancement; 20 changes in VO[2] sessions (6 x 5 min) max or anaerobic during exercise performance across 4 months Noisy-NFB group: 45 student RCT: noisy vs. | working memory athletes (7 F, Multi-sport--student silent-room NFB vs. (p = 0.005) and [55] ages 18-35; >=5 y athletes control; 12 sessions; faster reaction practice) working memory and time; silent NFB reaction time tasks and control: no effect 3x/week group: | RCT: 3x/week vs. 2x/ IAB and faster 45 male student Multi-sport--student week NFB vs. control; reaction time; 2x [56] athletes (18-34 athletes 12 sessions; EEG at /week and y; >=5 y practice) Cz (Meditron Vertex control: no 823) significant changes 30 male student Quasi-experimental: 3x/week group: | [57] athletes (18-34 Multi-sport--student 3x/week vs. 2x/week IAB and HRV; 2x/ y; >=5 y practice) athletes NFB; 12 sessions; HRV week: no change and IAB measured 15 male Single-group RCT (no | attention and professional sham); EEG at P3/P4; reaction (+30%, [14] soccer players Soccer--pro youth 7 x 3-min sessions +27%, p < 0.01); (17.6 y; U17/U19/ (Spectre Biotech, effect maintained N2 levels) Suresnes, France) at 1-month follow-up (+20%) Quasi-experimental: | EEG (th-b) 20 athletes (10 b2-NFB at C3/C4; 20 modulation during [58] track & field, 10 Multi-sport--elite athletes sessions over 4 attention tasks, swimmers; 18-25 months; EEG and | effort and y) recovery measures recovery; control group: no change | chess performance (+38% 1 elite female Case study: SMR|/th| puzzle rush, chess player (ELO NFB + BFB; 14 +20-25 ELO), | [59] > 2350; Top 100 Chess--elite athlete sessions + 6/12-month anxiety, | HRV worldwide) follow-up and regulation control; sustained gains at 6-12 months Crossover quasi-experimental EG: | a power study: a| NFB (+34%, p < (BrainBit 0.001), | task 41 elite soccer music-feedback switching and players (26 F, 15 system, BrainBit mental rotation [25] M; 2 Dutch pro Soccer--elite national Inc., Rancho Santa performance; teams; ~20 s) Margarita, CA, USA); slight | in 20 sessions over 4-6 control/flow; no weeks; cognitive effect on N-back tasks included or PVT (N-back, PVT, mental rotation) NFB group: | Crossover RCT: putting accuracy 44 professional SMR-NFB vs. and SMR power (p golfers (20 F, 24 no-training control; < 0.01), | [26] M; PGA/LPGA; mean Golf--professional single session (~2.5 attention/motor age 26.8 y) h); EEG at Cz (12-15 control, | Hz; ProComp5 relaxation (p < Infiniti) 0.01); control: no change NFB group: | Crossover RCT: swing accuracy 17 professional SMR-NFB vs. (To Pin, p = female golfers no-training control; 0.04), | SMR [27] (PGA of Taiwan/ Golf--professional single session (~2.5 power, | motor LPGA; mean age h) using ProComp5 control and ~24.6 y) Infiniti; EEG at Cz relaxation; control group: no change ILF-NFB group: | shooting accuracy 20 semi-skilled RCT: ILF-NFB vs. (p = 0.005), | [60] pistol shooters Shooting--semi-skilled control; 20 sessions attention network (10 M, 10 F; mean national level over 7 weeks; EEG at efficiency (ANT, age 28-40 y) T3/T4/P4/Fp1 p < 0.01); control: no change SMR-NFB group: | pleasure and RCT: SMR-NFB vs. arousal (p < 24 university control; 12 sessions 0.05), | SMR/th [61] archers (16 M, 8 Archery--university over 4 weeks ratio (p < 0.05); F; ~22 y; 4 y competitive (ProComp5 Infiniti); no performance experience) EEG at Cz improvement; control group: | precision over time Pre-post design: NFB vs. control; 15 NFB group: | shot 24 expert rifle sessions over 5 weeks result (p = [62] shooters (~30 y; Shooting--expert, national/ (ProComp P2 and P8 0.001); no other ~7 y experience) provincial systems (Thought EEG or behavioral Technology Ltd., changes; control: Montreal, QC, Canada; no improvement C3/Pz; SMR, b1|, a|) NFB group: | a Pre-post power (p < 0.05), quasi-experimental | vestibular 28 female design: a| NFB (F1/F2 stability, | [63] gymnasts (15 NFB, Gymnastics--high-skilled, /P3/P4; Boslab-alpha memorization 13 control) competitive period (SRIMBB RAMS, speed, | Novosibirsk, self-estimation Russia)); 15 sessions bias; control: no before competition change in attention/anxiety NFB group: | shooting accuracy 20 national-level Pistol RCT: a| NFB vs. (p < 0.001), | [15] pistol shooters Shooting--national-level control; 16 sessions temporal a power; (3 F, 17 M) experts (Peak Achievement no change in Trainer) coherence; control: no improvement NFB group: | shooting accuracy 31 university ice RCT: SMR/th/b1 NFB + (p = 0.018), | hockey players Ice Hockey--elite BFB vs. control; 15 SMR (p = 0.001); [64] (18 F, 13 M; university athletes sessions over 4.5 no SMR change ~21.7 y) months during competition; control: slower improvement BFB + NFB group: RCT: BFB + NFB vs. | technical 45 novice BFB vs. control; 24 skills (lay-up, [65] basketball Basketball--novice athletes sessions over 8 weeks passing) and players (3 (1-3 y exp.) (ProComp Infiniti physiological groups, n = 15) system) indices (BFB, HRV); control: no improvement NFB group: | RCT: SMR|, th|, anxiety (p < 20 elite female high-b| NFB 0.01); control: [66] swimmers (13-14 Swimming--elite (videogame-based) vs. no change; y; 5-6 y control; 12 sessions significant time experience) over 4 weeks x group interaction (p = 0.017) 30 male Quasi-experimental: 1 | self-talk (p < volleyball NFB session (SMR| 0.05), | serve players (15 Volleyball--elite & 12-15 Hz; T3, T4 performance (p < [16] elite, 15 non-elite sites; videogame 0.01); greater non-elite; mean feedback); comparison gains observed in age 22.8 y) between elite and elite athletes non-elite groups Quasi-experimental NFB group: | 24 female rugby pre-post design: NFB passing accuracy players (16-25 y; vs. control; 15 (p < 0.01, both [17] n = 12 NFB, n = Rugby--female athletes sessions (3x/week, 40 sides); no change 12 control) min); a| at Pz and in shot accuracy; SMR| at C3 control: no improvement Abbreviations and symbols: ABAB design--alternating no-feedback/ feedback block sequence; a--alpha band; b--beta band; ANT--Attention Network Test; BFB--biofeedback; C3, C4, Cz, Fpz, Fz, P4, P8, Fp1--standard EEG electrode sites (10-20 system); CG--control group; EG--experimental group; ELO--Elo rating system (FIDE chess ranking method); FMT--frontal midline theta; FSI-NFB--function-specific instruction neurofeedback; HR--heart rate; HRV--heart rate variability; IAB--individual alpha band; ILF--infra-low frequency; LF/ HF--low-frequency to high-frequency power ratio; MRI--magnetic resonance imaging; MRE--mean radial error; NFB--neurofeedback; ns--not significant; PVT--Psychomotor Vigilance Task; RCT--randomized controlled trial; RESTQ--Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes; RPE--rating of perceived effort; SAB--standard alpha band; SMR--sensorimotor rhythm; th--theta band; TI-NFB--traditional instruction neurofeedback; |--increase; |--decrease. Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. (c) 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Share and Cite MDPI and ACS Style Zacarias, R.M.G.; Bulathwatta, D.T.; Bidzan-Bluma, I.; de Jesus, S.N.; Correia, J.M. EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ bioengineering12111202 AMA Style Zacarias RMG, Bulathwatta DT, Bidzan-Bluma I, de Jesus SN, Correia JM. EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering. 2025; 12 (11):1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12111202 Chicago/Turabian Style Zacarias, Rui Manuel Guerreiro, Darshika Thejani Bulathwatta, Ilona Bidzan-Bluma, Saul Neves de Jesus, and Joao Mendonca Correia. 2025. "EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies" Bioengineering 12, no. 11: 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12111202 APA Style Zacarias, R. M. G., Bulathwatta, D. T., Bidzan-Bluma, I., de Jesus, S. N., & Correia, J. M. (2025). EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering, 12(11), 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ bioengineering12111202 Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here. Article Metrics No No Article Access Statistics For more information on the journal statistics, click here. Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view. Supplementary Material * Supplementary File 1: ZIP-Document (ZIP, 231 KB) clear Zoom | Orient | As Lines | As Sticks | As Cartoon | As Surface | Previous Scene | Next Scene Cite Export citation file: BibTeX | EndNote | RIS MDPI and ACS Style Zacarias, R.M.G.; Bulathwatta, D.T.; Bidzan-Bluma, I.; de Jesus, S.N.; Correia, J.M. EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ bioengineering12111202 AMA Style Zacarias RMG, Bulathwatta DT, Bidzan-Bluma I, de Jesus SN, Correia JM. EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering. 2025; 12 (11):1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12111202 Chicago/Turabian Style Zacarias, Rui Manuel Guerreiro, Darshika Thejani Bulathwatta, Ilona Bidzan-Bluma, Saul Neves de Jesus, and Joao Mendonca Correia. 2025. "EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies" Bioengineering 12, no. 11: 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12111202 APA Style Zacarias, R. M. G., Bulathwatta, D. T., Bidzan-Bluma, I., de Jesus, S. N., & Correia, J. M. (2025). EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies. Bioengineering, 12(11), 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ bioengineering12111202 Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here. clear Bioengineering, EISSN 2306-5354, Published by MDPI RSS Content Alert Further Information Article Processing Charges Pay an Invoice Open Access Policy Contact MDPI Jobs at MDPI Guidelines For Authors For Reviewers For Editors For Librarians For Publishers For Societies For Conference Organizers MDPI Initiatives Sciforum MDPI Books Preprints.org Scilit SciProfiles Encyclopedia JAMS Proceedings Series Follow MDPI LinkedIn Facebook X MDPI Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals [ ]Accounting and Auditing [ ]Acoustics [ ]Acta Microbiologica Hellenica [ ]Actuators [ ]Adhesives [ ]Administrative Sciences [ ]Adolescents [ ]Advances in Respiratory Medicine [ ]Aerobiology [ ]Aerospace [ ]Agriculture [ ]AgriEngineering [ ]Agrochemicals [ ]Agronomy [ ]AI [ ]AI Chemistry [ ]AI for Engineering [ ]AI in Education [ ]AI in Medicine [ ]AI Materials [ ]AI Sensors [ ]Air [ ]Algorithms [ ]Allergies [ ]Alloys [ ]Analytica [ ]Analytics [ ]Anatomia [ ]Anesthesia Research [ ]Animals [ ]Antibiotics [ ]Antibodies [ ]Antioxidants [ ]Applied Biosciences [ ]Applied Mechanics [ ]Applied Microbiology [ ]Applied Nano [ ]Applied Sciences [ ]Applied System Innovation [ ]AppliedChem [ ]AppliedMath [ ]AppliedPhys [ ]Aquaculture Journal [ ]Architecture [ ]Arthropoda [ ]Arts [ ]Astronautics [ ]Astronomy [ ]Atmosphere [ ]Atoms [ ]Audiology Research [ ]Automation [ ]Axioms [ ]Bacteria [ ]Batteries [ ]Behavioral Sciences [ ]Beverages [ ]Big Data and Cognitive Computing [ ]BioChem [ ]Bioengineering [ ]Biologics [ ]Biology [ ]Biology and Life Sciences Forum [ ]Biomass [ ]Biomechanics [ ]BioMed [ ]Biomedicines [ ]BioMedInformatics [ ]Biomimetics [ ]Biomolecules [ ]Biophysica [ ]Bioresources and Bioproducts [ ]Biosensors [ ]Biosphere [ ]BioTech [ ]Birds [ ]Blockchains [ ]Brain Sciences [ ]Buildings [ ]Businesses [ ]C [ ]Cancers [ ]Cardiogenetics [ ]Cardiovascular Medicine [ ]Catalysts [ ]Cells [ ]Ceramics [ ]Challenges [ ]ChemEngineering [ ]Chemistry [ ]Chemistry Proceedings [ ]Chemosensors [ ]Children [ ]Chips [ ]CivilEng [ ]Clean Technologies [ ]Climate [ ]Clinical and Translational Neuroscience [ ]Clinical Bioenergetics [ ]Clinics and Practice [ ]Clocks & Sleep [ ]Coasts [ ]Coatings [ ]Colloids and Interfaces [ ]Colorants [ ]Commodities [ ]Complexities [ ]Complications [ ]Compounds [ ]Computation [ ]Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum [ ]Computers [ ]Condensed Matter [ ]Conservation [ ]Construction Materials [ ]Corrosion and Materials Degradation [ ]Cosmetics [ ]COVID [ ]Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction [ ]Crops [ ]Cryo [ ]Cryptography [ ]Crystals [ ]Culture [ ]Current Issues in Molecular Biology [ ]Current Oncology [ ]Dairy [ ]Data [ ]Dentistry Journal [ ]Dermato [ ]Dermatopathology [ ]Designs [ ]Diabetology [ ]Diagnostics [ ]Dietetics [ ]Digital [ ]Disabilities [ ]Diseases [ ]Diversity [ ]DNA [ ]Drones [ ]Drugs and Drug Candidates [ ]Dynamics [ ]Earth [ ]Ecologies [ ]Econometrics [ ]Economies [ ]Education Sciences [ ]Electricity [ ]Electrochem [ ]Electronic Materials [ ]Electronics [ ]Emergency Care and Medicine [ ]Encyclopedia [ ]Endocrines [ ]Energies [ ]Energy Storage and Applications [ ]Eng [ ]Engineering Proceedings [ ]Entropic and Disordered Matter [ ]Entropy [ ]Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings [ ]Environments [ ]Epidemiologia [ ]Epigenomes [ ]European Burn Journal [ ]European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education [ ]Family Sciences [ ]Fermentation [ ]Fibers [ ]FinTech [ ]Fire [ ]Fishes [ ]Fluids [ ]Foods [ ]Forecasting [ ]Forensic Sciences [ ]Forests [ ]Fossil Studies [ ]Foundations [ ]Fractal and Fractional [ ]Fuels [ ]Future [ ]Future Internet [ ]Future Pharmacology [ ]Future Transportation [ ]Galaxies [ ]Games [ ]Gases [ ]Gastroenterology Insights [ ]Gastrointestinal Disorders [ ]Gastronomy [ ]Gels [ ]Genealogy [ ]Genes [ ]Geographies [ ]GeoHazards [ ]Geomatics [ ]Geometry [ ]Geosciences [ ]Geotechnics [ ]Geriatrics [ ]Germs [ ]Glacies [ ]Gout, Urate, and Crystal Deposition Disease [ ]Grasses [ ]Green Health [ ]Hardware [ ]Healthcare [ ]Hearts [ ]Hemato [ ]Hematology Reports [ ]Heritage [ ]Histories [ ]Horticulturae [ ]Hospitals [ ]Humanities [ ]Humans [ ]Hydrobiology [ ]Hydrogen [ ]Hydrology [ ]Hydropower [ ]Hygiene [ ]Immuno [ ]Infectious Disease Reports [ ]Informatics [ ]Information [ ]Infrastructures [ ]Inorganics [ ]Insects [ ]Instruments [ ]Intelligent Infrastructure and Construction [ ]International Journal of Cognitive Sciences [ ]International Journal of Environmental Medicine [ ]International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [ ]International Journal of Financial Studies [ ]International Journal of Molecular Sciences [ ]International Journal of Neonatal Screening [ ]International Journal of Orofacial Myology and Myofunctional Therapy [ ]International Journal of Plant Biology [ ]International Journal of Topology [ ]International Journal of Translational Medicine [ ]International Journal of Turbomachinery, Propulsion and Power [ ]International Medical Education [ ]Inventions [ ]IoT [ ]ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information [ ]J [ ]Journal of Aesthetic Medicine [ ]Journal of Ageing and Longevity [ ]Journal of CardioRenal Medicine [ ]Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease [ ]Journal of Clinical & Translational Ophthalmology [ ]Journal of Clinical Medicine [ ]Journal of Composites Science [ ]Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy [ ]Journal of Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease [ ]Journal of Developmental Biology [ ]Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Analyses [ ]Journal of Eye Movement Research [ ]Journal of Functional Biomaterials [ ]Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology [ ]Journal of Fungi [ ]Journal of Imaging [ ]Journal of Intelligence [ ]Journal of Low Power Electronics and Applications [ ]Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing [ ]Journal of Marine Science and Engineering [ ]Journal of Market Access & Health Policy [ ]Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences [ ]Journal of Molecular Pathology [ ]Journal of Nanotheranostics [ ]Journal of Nuclear Engineering [ ]Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, Hearing and Balance Medicine [ ]Journal of Parks [ ]Journal of Personalized Medicine [ ]Journal of Pharmaceutical and BioTech Industry [ ]Journal of Respiration [ ]Journal of Risk and Financial Management [ ]Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks [ ]Journal of the Oman Medical Association [ ]Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research [ ]Journal of Vascular Diseases [ ]Journal of Xenobiotics [ ]Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens [ ]Journalism and Media [ ]Kidney and Dialysis [ ]Kinases and Phosphatases [ ]Knowledge [ ]LabMed [ ]Laboratories [ ]Land [ ]Languages [ ]Laws [ ]Life [ ]Lights [ ]Limnological Review [ ]Lipidology [ ]Liquids [ ]Literature [ ]Livers [ ]Logics [ ]Logistics [ ]Lubricants [ ]Lymphatics [ ]Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction [ ]Machines [ ]Macromol [ ]Magnetism [ ]Magnetochemistry [ ]Marine Drugs [ ]Materials [ ]Materials Proceedings [ ]Mathematical and Computational Applications [ ]Mathematics [ ]Medical Sciences [ ]Medical Sciences Forum [ ]Medicina [ ]Medicines [ ]Membranes [ ]Merits [ ]Metabolites [ ]Metals [ ]Meteorology [ ]Methane [ ]Methods and Protocols [ ]Metrics [ ]Metrology [ ]Micro [ ]Microbiology Research [ ]Microelectronics [ ]Micromachines [ ]Microorganisms [ ]Microplastics [ ]Microwave [ ]Minerals [ ]Mining [ ]Modelling [ ]Modern Mathematical Physics [ ]Molbank [ ]Molecules [ ]Multimedia [ ]Multimodal Technologies and Interaction [ ]Muscles [ ]Nanoenergy Advances [ ]Nanomanufacturing [ ]Nanomaterials [ ]NDT [ ]Network [ ]Neuroglia [ ]Neuroimaging [ ]Neurology International [ ]NeuroSci [ ]Nitrogen [ ]Non-Coding RNA [ ]Nursing Reports [ ]Nutraceuticals [ ]Nutrients [ ]Obesities [ ]Occupational Health [ ]Oceans [ ]Onco [ ]Optics [ ]Oral [ ]Organics [ ]Organoids [ ]Osteology [ ]Oxygen [ ]Parasitologia [ ]Particles [ ]Pathogens [ ]Pathophysiology [ ]Peace Studies [ ]Pediatric Reports [ ]Pets [ ]Pharmaceuticals [ ]Pharmaceutics [ ]Pharmacoepidemiology [ ]Pharmacy [ ]Philosophies [ ]Photochem [ ]Photonics [ ]Phycology [ ]Physchem [ ]Physical Sciences Forum [ ]Physics [ ]Physiologia [ ]Plants [ ]Plasma [ ]Platforms [ ]Pollutants [ ]Polymers [ ]Polysaccharides [ ]Populations [ ]Poultry [ ]Powders [ ]Precision Oncology [ ]Proceedings [ ]Processes [ ]Prosthesis [ ]Proteomes [ ]Psychiatry International [ ]Psychoactives [ ]Psychology International [ ]Publications [ ]Purification [ ]Quantum Beam Science [ ]Quantum Reports [ ]Quaternary [ ]Radiation [ ]Reactions [ ]Real Estate [ ]Receptors [ ]Recycling [ ]Regional Science and Environmental Economics [ ]Religions [ ]Remote Sensing [ ]Reports [ ]Reproductive Medicine [ ]Resources [ ]Rheumato [ ]Risks [ ]Robotics [ ]Romanian Journal of Preventive Medicine [ ]Ruminants [ ]Safety [ ]Sci [ ]Scientia Pharmaceutica [ ]Sclerosis [ ]Seeds [ ]Semiconductors and Heterogeneous Integration [ ]Sensors [ ]Separations [ ]Sexes [ ]Signals [ ]Sinusitis [ ]Smart Cities [ ]Social Sciences [ ]Societe Internationale d'Urologie Journal [ ]Societies [ ]Software [ ]Soil Systems [ ]Solar [ ]Solids [ ]Spectroscopy Journal [ ]Sports [ ]Standards [ ]Stats [ ]Stresses [ ]Surfaces [ ]Surgeries [ ]Surgical Techniques Development [ ]Sustainability [ ]Sustainable Chemistry [ ]Symmetry [ ]SynBio [ ]Systems [ ]Targets [ ]Taxonomy [ ]Technologies [ ]Telecom [ ]Textiles [ ]Thalassemia Reports [ ]Theoretical and Applied Ergonomics [ ]Therapeutics [ ]Thermo [ ]Time and Space [ ]Tomography [ ]Tourism and Hospitality [ ]Toxics [ ]Toxins [ ]Transplantology [ ]Trauma Care [ ]Trends in Higher Education [ ]Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease [ ]Universe [ ]Urban Science [ ]Uro [ ]Vaccines [ ]Vehicles [ ]Venereology [ ]Veterinary Sciences [ ]Vibration [ ]Virtual Worlds [ ]Viruses [ ]Vision [ ]Waste [ ]Water [ ]Wild [ ]Wind [ ]Women [ ]World [ ]World Electric Vehicle Journal [ ]Youth [ ]Zoonotic Diseases [ ] Subscribe (c) 1996-2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience. Read more about our cookies here. Accept Share Link [https://www.mdpi.com] Copy clear Share https://www.mdpi.com/3572746 clear Back to TopTop