A decoding accuracy of 77.6% was obtained for the non-feedback condition, which is high considering that decoding was performed on a single TR without averaging multiple scans. We also tested if neurofeedback of scan-by-scan brain state classification
results can improve decoding performance by using a feedback condition learn more in which the relative mix of the face and place picture was adjusted depending on classification results. However, neurofeedback did not significantly improve decoding performance (see Supporting Information). When we analysed the results of TR-by-TR decoding performance, we did not observe an improvement in accuracy over time for feedback trials. This contradicted our expectation that neurofeedback of the attended stimulus in the form of its enhancement in the hybrid picture would result in higher decoding performance. From a purely perceptual point of view, enhancement of the target picture should make classification easier as an enhanced target picture would resemble more closely the neural patterns that the classifier was originally trained on. To examine why no improvement in decoding accuracy was observed in the feedback condition, we computed classifier prediction probability as a function of TR (see Supporting Information). We indeed
observed an increase in GDC-0449 ic50 the prediction probability of attended stimuli for successful feedback trials. However, we also observed a decrease in the prediction probability for unsuccessful feedback trials. This is because in the feedback condition, visibility of the attended picture increased as a trial progressed, irrespective of whether it was the target or distractor picture. As a result, when both successful and unsuccessful trials were combined and the TR-by-TR prediction
probabilities were computed again, we did not observe any difference between feedback and non-feedback conditions. Hence, no significant Dapagliflozin difference between feedback and non-feedback conditions was observed. A number of other design choices may have affected performance in the feedback condition. First, because feedback and non-feedback trials were conducted in interleaved mini-blocks, it might have weakened any learning effect as subjects would not have been able to discover a consistent strategy due to frequent switching between the feedback and non-feedback trials. In future studies, rather than using a within-subject design for feedback and non-feedback conditions, a between-subject design should be used. Second, the duration of feedback was chosen to be 12 TRs (24 s) as a compromise between the number of trials and the experiment duration. This might have been too short for any significant strategy learning. Previous real-time studies have used trial durations ranging from 15 to 60 s conducted over the course of multiple days (see Weiskopf et al., 2005 for a review).