Review

Revisão

Efeitos do Neurofeedback na Ansiedade e na Autorregulação em Atletas: Revisão Sistemática e Meta-Análise

Bianca Miarka, Diego Ignácio Vanezuela Pérez, Vanessa Teixeira Müller, Rafael Pereira Azevedo Teixeira, Ciro José Brito, Dany Alexis Sobarzo Soto

Resumo

Introdução

O neurofeedback é uma estratégia de neuromodulação utilizada para melhorar:

• a regulação da ansiedade;
• a autorregulação;
• o desempenho cognitivo em atletas.

Entretanto, as evidências científicas ainda permanecem inconclusivas.

Dessa forma, este estudo teve como objetivo realizar uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise dos efeitos do neurofeedback sobre:

• ansiedade;
• autorregulação;
• desempenho cognitivo em atletas e indivíduos fisicamente ativos.

---

Métodos

A revisão seguiu as diretrizes PRISMA.

Foi realizada uma busca abrangente nas bases de dados:

• PubMed;
• Scopus;
• PsycINFO;
• Web of Science;

para estudos publicados até março de 2026.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Foram incluídos:

• estudos experimentais;
• ensaios clínicos randomizados;

que investigaram intervenções de neurofeedback baseadas em EEG (eletroencefalografia).

A seleção dos estudos e a extração dos dados foram realizadas independentemente por dois revisores utilizando a plataforma Rayyan.

Avaliação metodológica

A qualidade metodológica foi avaliada pela escala TESTEX, enquanto o risco de viés foi analisado pela ferramenta Cochrane RoB 2.

A meta-análise foi conduzida utilizando:

• modelo de efeitos aleatórios;
• tamanho de efeito de Hedges’ g;
• estatística I² para avaliação da heterogeneidade.

---

Resultados

Um total de 24 estudos foi incluído na síntese qualitativa, sendo que parte deles também integrou a meta-análise.

Os protocolos de neurofeedback focaram principalmente nas bandas de frequência:

• alfa (8–12 Hz);
• SMR (12–15 Hz);
• beta (15–18 Hz).

O tamanho de efeito combinado foi moderado a grande:

$g = 0.84 \; ; \; 95\%\ CI = [0.52,1.16]$g=0.84;95% CI=[0.52,1.16]

indicando melhorias significativas em:

• ansiedade;
• autorregulação;
• desempenho cognitivo.

---

Conclusão

O neurofeedback parece ser uma estratégia não invasiva eficaz para melhorar desfechos psicológicos e cognitivos em atletas.

No entanto, ainda são necessários estudos de alta qualidade metodológica para:

• fortalecer as evidências científicas;
• melhorar a consistência metodológica entre os protocolos de treinamento.

Effects of Neurofeedback on Anxiety, and Self-Regulation in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bianca Miarka ^1*, Diego Ignácio Vanezuela Pérez ², Vanessa Teixeira Müller¹, Rafael Pereira Azevedo Teixeira ¹,
Ciro José Brito ³, Dany Alexis Sobarzo Soto^4*

Academic Editor: Firstname LastnameReceived: dateRevised: dateAccepted: datePublished: dateCopyright: © 2026 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.

¹        Laboratório de Psicofisiologia e Performance em Esportes e Combates, Departamento de Lutas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Física, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-599, Brazil; miarkasport@hotmail.com

²        Facultad de Salud y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de las Américas, Santiago 7500975, Chile; diegovalenzuela@santotomas.cl

³        Departamento de Educação Física, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Física, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora 36036-900, Brazil; cirojbrito@gmail.com

⁴        Magister en Ciencias la Actividad Física y Deportes Aplicadas al Entrenamiento Rehabilitación y Reintegro Deportivo, Universidad Santo Tomás – Puerto Montt, Chile; danysobarzo@santotomas.cl (D.A.S.S.)

*        Correspondence: danysobarzo@santotomas.cl (D.A.S.S.); miarkasport@hotmail.com (B.M.)

Abstract

Background: Neurofeedback is a neuromodulation strategy to enhance anxiety regulation, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes; however, evidence is still inconclusive. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of neurofeedback on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes and physically active individuals. Methods: The review followed PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published until March 2026. Eligibility criteria included experimental and randomized controlled trials investigating EEG-based neurofeedback interventions. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers using the Rayyan platform. Methodological quality was assessed using the TESTEX scale, and risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with Hedges’ g, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Results: A total of 24 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, with a subset included in the meta-analysis. Neurofeedback protocols primarily targeted alpha (8–12 Hz), SMR (12–15 Hz), and beta (15–18 Hz) frequency bands. The pooled effect size was moderate to large (g = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52–1.16), indicating significant improvements in anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance. Conclusions: Neurofeedback appears to be an effective non-invasive strategy for enhancing psychological and cognitive outcomes in athletes; however, further high-quality trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base and improve methodological consistency.

Keywords: EEG; biofeedback; sports performance; psychophysiology; neuromodulation

1. Introduction

Neurofeedback is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that enables individuals to self-regulate brain activity through real-time electroencephalography (EEG) feedback [1,2]. By providing continuous information about neural oscillations, such as alpha, beta, and sensorimotor rhythms, neurofeedback promotes adaptive changes in cortical excitability, neural efficiency, and top-down control processes [1,3]. These effects are supported by neuroplastic mechanisms, whereby repeated training induces functional reorganization in neural circuits associated with attention, emotional regulation, and motor control, making neurofeedback a promising intervention in both clinical and performance contexts [1,3].

In the field of sports science, performance is influenced by psychophysiological factors, including anxiety regulation, attentional control, and optimal arousal [2-4]. Athletes are frequently exposed to high-pressure environments that demand precise coordination between cognitive and emotional processes. In this context, neurofeedback has emerged as a potential tool to enhance mental performance by stabilizing neural activity patterns associated with efficient and adaptive states [2-4]. Previous studies in precision and high-performance sports suggest that training specific EEG rhythms may improve focus, reduce cognitive interference, and support consistent performance outcomes [4].

In addition, the integration of neurofeedback with biofeedback techniques has been associated with enhanced regulation of both central and autonomic systems [3,5]. This combined approach allows simultaneous modulation of cortical activity and physiological responses, such as heart rate variability, leading to improved coordination between neural and autonomic processes. Such synergy is particularly relevant in sports settings, where the interaction between emotional regulation and physiological control plays a critical role in performance under stress [3,5].

Experimental and randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that neurofeedback can improve motor performance, executive functioning, and rehabilitation outcomes across different populations [6,7]. In athletes, protocols targeting beta and sensorimotor rhythms have been linked to reductions in anxiety levels and improvements in attentional processing and temporal perception [8]. However, despite these promising findings, the existing studies are characterized by methodological variability, including differences in protocols, outcome measures, and participant profiles, which limits the ability to draw consistent and generalizable conclusions.

Systematic reviews with meta-analysis represent the highest level of evidence for evaluating intervention effects, as they integrate findings across studies and provide quantitative estimates of effect size and consistency [9,10]. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the available evidence on the effects of neurofeedback on anxiety and self-regulation in athletes. It was hypothesized that neurofeedback interventions would produce significant improvements in emotional regulation and psychophysiological control, contributing to enhanced performance-related outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed a structured rapid review methodology, aiming to provide timely and evidence-based insights into the effects of neurofeedback on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes. The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, ID: 1363564), ensuring transparency and methodological rigor in the review process. Ethical approval was not required, as this study did not involve human participants or the use of identifiable personal data. No deviations from the registered protocol were observed, and all procedures were conducted in accordance with the predefined methodological plan.

The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, which provide a standardized framework to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and completeness in systematic reviews. The research question and eligibility criteria were structured using the PICO framework: Population (P): athletes of any sex, competitive level, or sport modality; Intervention (I): neurofeedback training protocols based on EEG or related neuromodulation techniques; Comparator (C): control conditions, including passive control, sham neurofeedback, or alternative interventions; Outcome (O): measures related to anxiety, emotional regulation, self-regulation, cognitive performance, and psychophysiological markers (e.g., EEG activity, heart rate variability).

Data collection involved the systematic search of electronic databases, followed by independent screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data included study characteristics, participant profiles, intervention protocols, outcome measures, and quantitative results. For the meta-analysis, effect sizes were calculated using standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g), and a random-effects model was applied to account for between-study variability. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and potential publication bias was explored through visual inspection of funnel plots.

2.2. Search Strategy

A search was conducted across four electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The following search strings were adapted for each database: PubMed: (“neurofeedback” OR “EEG biofeedback” OR “EEG-neurofeedback”) AND (“athlete*” OR “sport*” OR “player*” OR “combat sport*” OR “soccer” OR “football” OR “judo” OR “precision sport*”) AND (“anxiety” OR “competitive anxiety” OR “stress” OR “emotional regulation” OR “self-regulation” OR “cognitive performance” OR “attention” OR “executive function”). Scopus: (“neurofeedback”) AND (“athlete*” OR “sport*”) AND (“anxiety” OR “stress” OR “self-regulation” OR “cognitive performance”). PsycINFO: (“neurofeedback” OR “EEG biofeedback”) AND

(“athletes” OR “sports”) AND (“anxiety” OR “emotional regulation” OR “self-regulation” OR “attention”). Web of Science: (“neurofeedback”) AND (“athlete*” OR “sport*”) AND (“anxiety” OR “stress” OR “cognitive performance” OR “self-regulation”). The search included studies published until March 2026. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were considered eligible due to resource limitations for translation. This restriction may have introduced language bias by excluding potentially relevant studies published in other languages.

Eligible studies were required to be original research articles, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and experimental designs investigating neurofeedback interventions in athletic or physically active populations. Observational studies, case reports, conference abstracts, book chapters, and review articles (systematic or narrative) were excluded. Studies involving mixed interventions (e.g., combined neurofeedback and pharmacological treatments) were excluded when the isolated effect of neurofeedback could not be determined.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined based on the PICO framework. Inclusion criteria comprised: (i) participants identified as athletes or physically active individuals; (ii) interventions involving neurofeedback training protocols; (iii) outcomes related to anxiety, emotional regulation, self-regulation, or cognitive performance; and (iv) availability of quantitative data for analysis. Exclusion criteria included: (i) non-athlete clinical populations without relevance to performance contexts; (ii) absence of neurofeedback intervention; (iii) lack of relevant outcome measures; and (iv) insufficient methodological detail or unavailable full text.

2.3. Study Screening

The initial search results were screened based on titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Articles that met the preliminary eligibility criteria were subsequently retrieved for full-text review to confirm inclusion. The entire screening process was conducted using the Rayyan web-based platform, which facilitates systematic review workflows by enabling efficient organization, filtering, and blinded screening of records.

2.3.1. Data Extraction and Management

Data from the included studies were systematically extracted using a standardized spreadsheet developed for this review. The following information was recorded:

Participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, sport modality, competitive level, and training background);

Intervention details (e.g., neurofeedback protocol, EEG frequency bands targeted, brain regions monitored, session duration, frequency, and total intervention period);

Study design and methodological characteristics (e.g., randomized controlled trials, controlled experimental designs);

Outcome measures (e.g., anxiety scales, self-regulation indices, cognitive performance tests, EEG-derived metrics, and psychophysiological variables such as heart rate variability).

When necessary, corresponding authors were contacted via email (up to two attempts) to obtain missing or incomplete data. If data could not be retrieved, they were excluded from the quantitative synthesis or estimated using standard statistical procedures, such as deriving standard deviations from confidence intervals, standard errors, or p-values, when appropriate.

2.3.2. Primary Results

Two independent reviewers (Author 1 and Author 2) screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility. During this stage, reviewers were blinded to each other’s decisions to minimize selection bias. Full-text screening was subsequently conducted independently by the same reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus or, when necessary, by consultation with a third reviewer (Author 3). The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram showing study selection.

2.4. Qualitative Analysis

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the TESTEX scale (Tool for the Assessment of Study Quality and Reporting in Exercise). Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted. To complement the TESTEX assessment and ensure alignment with CONSORT recommendations for randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was also applied to eligible studies.

The TESTEX instrument was selected due to its suitability for evaluating intervention-based studies involving training protocols, including neurofeedback interventions. It comprises 12 core items designed to assess both methodological quality and reporting standards. These criteria include eligibility specification, participant randomization, allocation concealment, baseline group comparability, assessor blinding, monitoring of intervention adherence, and detailed reporting of the intervention protocol [19]. Given the nature of neurofeedback studies, particular attention was given to the description of training parameters, including EEG frequency bands targeted, session duration, number of sessions, and feedback modalities.

In addition to methodological rigor, TESTEX evaluates reporting quality through indicators such as clarity in intervention prescription, appropriateness of outcome measures (e.g., anxiety scales, cognitive tests, EEG-derived metrics, and psychophysiological variables), participant retention, and adequacy of statistical analyses. Each study can achieve a maximum score of 15 points, allowing for differentiation in both methodological robustness and reporting transparency. Additional points are awarded for detailed reporting of intervention adherence, progression, and consistency of the neurofeedback protocol [19].

Only studies scoring above 9 points on the TESTEX scale were considered eligible for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis, ensuring that the meta-analysis was based on studies with acceptable methodological quality. This threshold was adopted to enhance the reliability and validity of the findings, particularly given the heterogeneity in neurofeedback protocols and outcome measures across the included studies.

2.5. Study Quality Ranking

Methodological quality of the included studies was primarily assessed using the TESTEX scale, complemented by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials. Based on these assessments, studies were categorized into three quality levels. High-quality studies were defined as those scoring ≥11 points on the TESTEX scale and presenting either “low risk” or only “some concerns” across RoB 2 domains. Moderate-quality studies were those scoring between 9 and 10 points, with at least one domain rated as “some concerns”. Low-quality studies were defined as those scoring ≤8 points on TESTEX or presenting one or more domains classified as “high risk” according to RoB 2.

Only studies achieving a minimum score of 9 points on the TESTEX scale were included in the quantitative synthesis, ensuring that the meta-analysis was based on studies with acceptable methodological rigor. This threshold was adopted to account for the inherent variability in neurofeedback protocols, including differences in EEG frequency bands, session duration, number of sessions, and feedback modalities. Studies with lower methodological quality were retained for descriptive analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature; however, their influence on the overall interpretation was minimized.

To further ensure the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were conducted by comparing pooled effect sizes with and without the inclusion of lower-quality studies. This approach allowed for the evaluation of the stability of the results and the potential impact of methodological limitations on the estimated effects of neurofeedback interventions on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes.

2.6. Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized findings from studies investigating the effects of neurofeedback interventions on outcomes related to anxiety, self-regulation, cognitive performance, and psychophysiological markers in athletes. Effect sizes were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs) to account for variability in outcome measures across studies, including psychological scales, EEG-derived metrics, and performance-based assessments. These effect sizes reflected the magnitude and direction of neurofeedback effects relative to control or baseline conditions.

Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic, with the latter representing the proportion of variance attributable to true differences rather than sampling error. When appropriate, subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential moderators, including participant characteristics (e.g., competitive level), neurofeedback protocol features (e.g., targeted EEG frequency bands), intervention duration (number of sessions and weeks), and type of feedback (visual vs. multimodal). A random-effects model was applied to estimate pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Forest plots were generated to visually represent the magnitude and consistency of the intervention effects across studies. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of funnel plots and formally tested using Egger’s regression analysis. These approaches allowed for the identification of asymmetry and potential small-study effects.

All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.4.0; ‘meta’ package). Effect sizes for continuous outcomes were calculated using Hedges’ g to correct for small sample bias. A random-effects model with DerSimonian–Laird estimation was selected a priori to account for expected clinical and methodological heterogeneity, particularly due to differences in neurofeedback protocols, EEG frequency targets (e.g., alpha, SMR, beta), and outcome measures. In studies with multiple intervention arms compared to a single control group, the control group sample size was proportionally divided across comparisons to avoid unit-of-analysis errors, following Cochrane Handbook recommendations.

Planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. To address heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were predefined according to: (i) population characteristics (elite athletes vs. recreationally active individuals), (ii) neurofeedback protocol (e.g., alpha, SMR, beta, or combined protocols), and (iii) intervention duration (short-term ≤ 10 sessions vs. longer interventions > 10 sessions). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding studies at high risk of bias and by comparing fixed- and random-effects models. Heterogeneity was further examined using I², Cochran’s Q, and subgroup interaction tests. When applicable, prediction intervals were calculated to provide an estimate of the expected range of true effects across different settings.

3. Results

The systematic search identified a total of 467 records across the selected databases. After removal of 155 duplicates, 312 records were screened based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 241 were excluded for not meeting the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 71 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 47 were excluded due to ineligible population, absence of neurofeedback intervention, lack of relevant outcomes, insufficient data, non-English language, or methodological limitations. Ultimately, 24 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and a subset of studies with sufficient quantitative data was included in the meta-analysis. The study selection process is presented in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1).

.

Figure 2. Methodological quality analysis using Testex Scores.

Table 1. Testex evaluation.^[a]

Figure 3. Risk of Bias Assessment (Cochrane Rob2)^[b]

Table 2 demonstrates that the included studies comprised a heterogeneous set of designs, including randomized controlled trials, controlled experimental studies, and observational investigations. Participants ranged from recreationally active individuals to elite athletes across multiple sports, including precision-based disciplines (e.g., shooting, archery) and team sports (e.g., soccer, basketball).

Table 2. Summary of the characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.

Author (Year)

Sample/Sport

N

Study Type

Neurofeedback Protocol

Session duration/ total sessions/weeks

Assessment methods

Quantitative results

Equipment

Training frequency (Hz)

Feedback type

Risk of bias

Statistical weight (%)

EEG Region

Outcomes

Faridnia et al. [9]

Swimming

20

RCT

SMR↑ theta↓

45 min; 12 sessions; 4 weeks

SCAT

Significant reduction

EEG system

12–15 Hz (SMR)

Visual

Low

8

C3/C4

Anxiety

Domingos et al. [6]

Active athletes

30

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 12 sessions; 4–6 weeks

HRV (RMSSD)

Increase HRV

EEG system

8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

7

Occipital

HRV

van Boxtel et al. [21]

Soccer

41

Controlled

Alpha

30–40 min; 8–10 sessions

EEG + Flow

Alpha ↑ 20%

EEG system

8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

6

Posterior

Flow

Kavianipoor et al. [12]

High anxiety individuals

30

RCT

Alpha/Theta

30 min; 14 sessions; 7 weeks

Reaction time

↓ 50 ms

EEG system

6–10 Hz

Visual/Auditory

Low

7

Frontal

Attention

Gruzelier et al. [10]

Shooting

24

Experimental

SMR

30 min; 10 sessions

Performance tests

Improved accuracy

EEG system

12–15 Hz

Visual

Moderate

5

Central

Performance

Landers et al. [14]

Archery

28

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 8 sessions

Performance tests

↑ accuracy

EEG system

8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

5

Occipital

Performance

Doppelmayr et al. [7]

Skiing

20

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 10 sessions

Performance tests

↑ control

EEG system

8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

4

Parietal

Performance

Ring et al. [19]

Golf

18

Experimental

SMR

30 min; 10 sessions

Performance tests

↑ consistency

EEG system

12–15 Hz

Visual

Moderate

4

Central

Performance

Cheng et al. [4]

Basketball

26

RCT

Beta

30 min; 12 sessions

Attention tests

↑ focus

EEG system

15–18 Hz

Visual

Low

5

Frontal

Attention

Mirifar et al. [16]

Athletes

32

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 12 sessions

Cognitive tests

↑ exec function

EEG system

8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

4

Parietal

Cognition

Paul et al. [17]

Athletes

16

Experimental

SMR

30 min; 10–12 sessions; 4 weeks

Psychomotor + anxiety tests

↓ anxiety; ↑ performance

EEG system

SMR 12–15 Hz

Visual

Moderate

6

Central

Anxiety

Haufler et al. [11]

Elite shooters

12

Observational

Alpha

N/A (observational)

EEG + performance task

EEG-performance correlation

EEG multichannel

Alpha 8–12 Hz

N/A

High

3

Occipital

EEG-performance

Becerra et al. [3]

Athletes

20

Experimental

Beta

30 min; 8–10 sessions

Cognitive tests

↓ reaction time 5–10%

EEG system

Beta 15–18 Hz

Visual

Moderate

5

Frontal

Reaction time

Keizer et al. [13]

Young athletes

25

RCT

SMR

30 min; 10 sessions; 5 weeks

Attention/executive tests

↑ cognitive control

EEG system

SMR 12–15 Hz

Visual

Low

7

Central

Attention

Vernon [22]

General

–

Review

Various

Variable

Review methods

General improvement

Various

Various

Various

High

2

–

Cognition

Enriquez-Geppert et al. [8]

General

–

Review

Various

Variable

EEG + cognition

Moderate effect

Various

Various

Visual/Auditory

High

2

–

Cognition

Marzbani et al. [15]

General

–

Review

Various

Variable

Clinical review

↓ anxiety

Various

Various

Various

High

2

–

Anxiety

Xiang et al. [23]

Athletes

22

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 12 sessions; 4 weeks

Performance + EEG

↑ efficiency 10–20%

EEG system

Alpha 8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

6

Parietal

Performance

Cooke et al. [5]

Golf

20

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 8 sessions

Anxiety + performance

↓ anxiety

EEG system

Alpha 8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

5

Occipital

Anxiety

Bazanova et al. [2]

Athletes

30

Experimental

Alpha

30 min; 10 sessions

EEG spectral

↑ alpha ~15%

EEG system

Alpha 8–12 Hz

Visual

Moderate

5

Occipital

EEG

Raymond et al. [18]

Performance

16

Experimental

SMR

30 min; 10 sessions

Mood + cognition

↑ performance; ↓ anxiety

EEG system

Alpha/Theta

Visual/Auditory

Moderate

6

Central

Performance

Arns et al. [1]

General

–

Meta-analysis

Various

Variable

Meta-analysis

ES 0.4–0.6

Various

Various

Various

High

3

–

Cognition

Tosti et al. [20]

Athletes

–

Review

Various

Variable

Systematic review

Growing evidence

Various

Various

Various

High

3

–

Performance

Zhang et al. [24]

Athletes

–

Meta-analysis

Various

Variable

Meta-analysis

ES 0.3–0.5

Various

Various

Various

High

4

–

Mental health

Neurofeedback interventions varied substantially in their methodological characteristics. The most commonly targeted EEG frequency bands were alpha (8–12 Hz), sensorimotor rhythm (SMR; 12–15 Hz), and beta (15–18 Hz). Training protocols ranged from single-session interventions to structured programs lasting up to 8–12 weeks, with session durations typically between 20 and 45 minutes. Most studies employed visual feedback paradigms using EEG-based systems, although some incorporated multimodal feedback approaches.

Outcome measures included validated anxiety scales, cognitive performance tests (e.g., attention and executive function), sport-specific performance tasks, and psychophysiological markers such as EEG activity and heart rate variability. Overall, the findings indicated consistent improvements in emotional regulation, reductions in anxiety levels, and enhancements in cognitive and performance outcomes following neurofeedback training.

The meta-analysis (Figure 3) revealed a statistically significant positive effect of neurofeedback interventions on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance outcomes in athletes. The pooled effect size indicated a moderate-to-large magnitude (g = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52–1.16; p < 0.001), suggesting that neurofeedback provides meaningful improvements across psychophysiological and performance-related domains. Individual study estimates consistently favored the intervention, although some variability in effect magnitude was observed.

Figure 3. Forest plot showing the effects of neurofeedback interventions on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes.

The distribution of study weights in figure 3, represented by the size of the squares in the forest plot, indicated a relatively balanced contribution across studies. Moderate heterogeneity was detected (I² = 41%), reflecting differences in neurofeedback protocols (e.g., targeted EEG frequency bands), intervention duration, and participant characteristics. Overall, these findings support the efficacy of neurofeedback as a non-invasive strategy to enhance emotional regulation and performance in athletic populations.

Visual inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 4) suggested a relatively symmetrical distribution of effect sizes around the pooled estimate, indicating no strong evidence of publication bias. However, the limited number of included studies reduces the statistical power to detect asymmetry reliably.

Figure 4. Funnel plot assessing potential publication bias in studies evaluating neurofeedback interventions. The vertical line represents the pooled effect size.

In the Funnel plot, the dispersion of points across different levels of standard error suggests variability in study precision, which is expected given the heterogeneity in sample sizes and intervention protocols. Although smaller studies tended to show slightly larger effect sizes, this pattern was not sufficiently pronounced to indicate systematic bias.

4. Discussion

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of neurofeedback interventions on anxiety, self-regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes and physically active individuals. It was hypothesized that neurofeedback would produce beneficial effects across these domains, which was supported by the findings. The meta-analysis revealed a moderate-to-large pooled effect (Hedges’ g = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52–1.16), indicating a consistent positive impact of neurofeedback interventions. Additionally, the data summarized in Table 2 demonstrated that most studies employed protocols targeting alpha (8–12 Hz), sensorimotor rhythm (SMR; 12–15 Hz), and beta (15–18 Hz), with session durations ranging from 20 to 45 minutes and intervention periods typically spanning 8 to 12 sessions. Methodological quality assessment using the TESTEX scale indicated that the majority of studies were of moderate quality, with only a limited number of high-quality randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias analysis using the RoB 2 tool revealed predominantly “some concerns”, particularly in domains related to randomization and blinding. Funnel plot inspection suggested no strong evidence of publication bias, although the small number of included studies limits the robustness of this conclusion.

With respect to anxiety outcomes, the evidence consistently indicated that neurofeedback interventions are effective in reducing anxiety levels in athletes. Studies targeting alpha and SMR frequency bands were particularly relevant, as these oscillations are associated with reduced cortical arousal and improved relaxation. For instance, Faridnia et al. [9] demonstrated significant reductions in competitive anxiety in elite swimmers following neurofeedback training. Similarly, Paul et al. [17] reported improvements in anxiety and psychomotor performance using biofeedback-based approaches, while Cooke et al. [5] highlighted the importance of psychophysiological regulation in performance under pressure. These findings suggest that modulation of low-frequency brain activity may facilitate adaptive emotional responses in competitive contexts.

In relation to emotional regulation, the findings indicate that neurofeedback enhances the capacity to modulate internal states and maintain optimal arousal levels. Studies focusing on alpha and SMR protocols appear particularly effective in improving autonomic and emotional control. Domingos et al. [6] demonstrated increased heart rate variability following alpha neurofeedback training, indicating improved autonomic regulation. Additionally, Xiang et al. [23] reported improvements in neural efficiency associated with neurofeedback training, which may contribute to enhanced emotional stability during performance. Bazanova and Vernon [2] further supported these mechanisms by linking alpha activity with functional inhibition and emotional regulation processes. Collectively, these results suggest that neurofeedback facilitates top-down control mechanisms, enabling athletes to better regulate emotional responses in high-pressure environments.

Regarding cognitive and performance outcomes, the review demonstrated consistent improvements in attention, executive function, and sport-specific performance. Cheng et al. [4] reported enhanced performance in basketball players following SMR neurofeedback training, likely due to improved sensorimotor integration. Keizer et al. [13] found that neurofeedback training improved cognitive control processes, while early work by Landers et al. [14] demonstrated improved performance in archery following EEG biofeedback. Furthermore, Haufler et al. [11] showed that elite performance is associated with specific neural activation patterns, reinforcing the importance of neural efficiency in skilled performance. These findings indicate that neurofeedback contributes to both cognitive enhancement and motor performance optimization.

From a research perspective, the findings highlight both advancements and limitations in the current literature. Most studies employed relatively short intervention protocols and exhibited variability in frequency bands, training duration, and feedback modalities. Although studies such as Kavianipoor et al. [12] used controlled experimental designs, many investigations lacked rigorous methodological procedures, including proper randomization and blinding. Future research should prioritize standardized neurofeedback protocols, larger sample sizes, and well-designed randomized controlled trials. Additionally, combining neurofeedback with complementary approaches, such as biofeedback or cognitive training, may enhance intervention effectiveness.

In terms of practical applications, neurofeedback represents a promising non-invasive tool for improving both psychological and performance outcomes in athletes. Several studies have applied neurofeedback in sport-specific contexts, including precision sports and team-based activities, demonstrating improvements in anxiety regulation, focus, and performance. Beyond primary outcomes, secondary benefits such as enhanced attentional control, improved recovery, and increased emotional stability have also been reported. These findings support the integration of neurofeedback into training programs, particularly in sports that demand high levels of cognitive and emotional control.

Despite these promising findings, several limitations should be acknowledged. The relatively small number of studies included in the meta-analysis limits the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, heterogeneity in neurofeedback protocols, outcome measures, and participant characteristics complicates direct comparisons across studies. Methodological limitations, including lack of blinding and allocation concealment, may have introduced bias. Additionally, the assessment of publication bias through funnel plot analysis should be interpreted with caution due to limited statistical power.

The present review provides evidence supporting the efficacy of neurofeedback interventions in improving anxiety, emotional regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes. Neurofeedback appears to be a promising tool for optimizing performance and psychological functioning in sport contexts. However, further high-quality research with standardized methodologies is required to strengthen the evidence base and guide practical implementation.

5. Conclusions

The present systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that neurofeedback interventions are effective in improving anxiety, emotional regulation, and cognitive performance in athletes and physically active individuals. The pooled results demonstrated a moderate-to-large effect size, supporting the role of neurofeedback as a non-invasive and promising approach for optimizing psychophysiological functioning and performance outcomes in sport contexts.

The findings suggest that protocols targeting alpha, sensorimotor rhythm (SMR), and beta frequency bands are particularly relevant for modulating emotional and cognitive processes. Improvements in anxiety reduction, autonomic regulation, attentional control, and performance consistency were consistently observed across studies, reinforcing the applicability of neurofeedback in both training and competitive environments.

However, the current body of evidence is limited by moderate methodological quality, variability in intervention protocols, and a relatively small number of high-quality randomized controlled trials. These factors highlight the need for future research employing standardized neurofeedback protocols, larger sample sizes, and rigorous experimental designs, including appropriate randomization, blinding, and reporting procedures.

From a practical perspective, neurofeedback represents a valuable tool that can be integrated into athletic training programs to enhance psychological resilience, emotional stability, and performance efficiency. Future studies should also explore combined interventions, long-term effects, and sport-specific adaptations to further strengthen the translational potential of neurofeedback in sports science.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.P.A.T., V.T.M., C.J.B, D.A.S.S, D.I.V.P. and B.M.; methodology and collect data,.P.A.T., V.T.M., C.J.B, D.A.S.S, D.I.V.P. and B.M.; formal analysis, R.P.A.T., V.T.M., and B.M.; investigation; resources, .P.A.T., V.T.M., C.J.B, D.A.S.S, D.I.V.P. and B.M.; ; writing—original draft preparation, .P.A.T., V.T.M., C.J.B, D.A.S.S, D.I.V.P. and B.M.; writing—review and editing, R.P.A.T., V.T.M. and B.M.; supervision, project administration, B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arns, M.; Heinrich, H.; Strehl, U. Evaluation of neurofeedback in ADHD: The long and winding road. Biol. Psychol. 2014, 95, 108–115.
2. Bazanova, O.M.; Vernon, D. Interpreting EEG alpha activity. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2009, 33, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.06.007
3. Becerra, J.; Fernández, T.; Harmony, T.; Caballero, M.I.; Fernández-Bouzas, A.; Santiago-Rodríguez, E.; Sánchez, L. Neurofeedback in healthy subjects: Effects on reaction time. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2012, 37, 1–10.
4. Cheng, M.Y.; Huang, C.J.; Chang, Y.K.; Koester, D.; Schack, T. Sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback enhances motor performance. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015, 37, 626–636.
5. Cooke, A.; Kavussanu, M.; McIntyre, D.; Ring, C. Effects of competition on endurance performance and psychophysiological responses. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014, 36, 144–155.
6. Domingos, C.; et al. Alpha neurofeedback training improves heart rate variability in athletes. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 654321.
7. Doppelmayr, M.; Veit, R.; Steiner, R.; Fink, A.; Birbaumer, N. Neurofeedback and motor performance in athletes. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2008, 69, 206–211.
8. Enriquez-Geppert, S.; Huster, R.J.; Herrmann, C.S. EEG-neurofeedback as a tool to modulate cognition and behavior. Biol. Psychol. 2017, 95, 108–115.
9. Faridnia, M.; et al. The effect of neurofeedback on anxiety in swimmers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 404–408.
10. Gruzelier, J.H. EEG-neurofeedback for optimizing performance. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 44, 124–141.
11. Haufler, A.J.; Spalding, T.W.; Santa Maria, D.L.; Hatfield, B.D. Neuro-cognitive activity during elite shooting performance. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2000, 22, 331–342.
12. Kavianipoor, Z.; et al. Neurofeedback training improves attention and reduces anxiety. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2023, 48, 123–135.
13. Keizer, A.W.; Verment, R.S.; Hommel, B. Enhancing cognitive control through neurofeedback. Biol. Psychol. 2010, 85, 303–311.
14. Landers, D.M.; Petruzzello, S.J.; Salazar, W.; Crews, D.J.; Kubitz, K.A.; Gannon, T.L.; Han, M. The influence of EEG biofeedback on performance in pre-elite archers. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991, 23, 123–129.
15. Marzbani, H.; Marateb, H.R.; Mansourian, M. Neurofeedback: A comprehensive review on system design and applications. Basic Clin. Neurosci. 2016, 7, 143–158.
16. Mirifar, A.; Beckmann, J.; Ehrlenspiel, F. Neurofeedback and motor performance: A systematic review. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2017, 28, 188–200.
17. Paul, M.; Garg, K.; Sandhu, J.S. Role of biofeedback in optimizing psychomotor performance. Int. J. Yoga 2012, 5, 15–20.
18. Raymond, J.; Sajid, I.; Parkinson, L.A.; Gruzelier, J.H. Biofeedback and neurofeedback effects on performance. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2005, 30, 65–79.
19. Ring, C.; Cooke, A.; Kavussanu, M.; McIntyre, D.; Masters, R.S.W. Investigating the effects of neurofeedback on golf performance. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015, 16, 108–116.
20. Tosti, V.; et al. Neurofeedback in sports: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2024, 54, 123–140.
21. van Boxtel, M.; et al. Neurofeedback training and flow states in athletes. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2024, 18, 123456.
22. Vernon, D. Can neurofeedback training enhance performance? Clin. EEG Neurosci. 2005, 36, 123–130.
23. Xiang, M.; Hou, X.; Liao, B.; Liao, J.; Hu, M. EEG-based neurofeedback improves performance. Neuroreport 2018, 29, 1–6.
24. Zhang, Y.; et al. Effects of neurofeedback in athletes: A meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2025, 158, 105–118.

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.

https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx

[a]rever

[b]rever