Neurofeedback in Athletes: a review

Recent emerging research with novel insights has expanded our understanding of EEG-based neurofeedback (NFB) as a tool to enhance performance across diverse populations, including elite athletes, amateur sportspeople, and non-athletes. The scoping review by Zacarias et al. (2025) synthesizes findings from 48 studies and provides a panoramic snapshot of how neurofeedback is being used, tested, and interpreted in laboratory and sports settings. This broad methodological landscape highlights both the field’s potential and its persistent challenges.

Neurofeedback, a specialized form of biofeedback, uses real-time electroencephalography (EEG) to help individuals learn to regulate brain activity. Biofeedback more broadly involves monitoring physiological signals such as heart rate, respiration, or skin conductance. Neurofeedback uniquely focuses on neural rhythms, providing reinforcement contingent on specific EEG patterns. By pairing feedback with adaptive learning mechanisms, especially operant conditioning and voluntary self-regulation, these tools shape neural plasticity and can influence cognitive and emotional performance.

The studies reviewed by Zacarias and colleagues converge on several compelling outcomes: improvements in attention, faster reaction times, more consistent motor execution, and increased self-regulation under pressure. Athletes from disciplines as varied as archery, golf, judo, volleyball, rugby, and shooting have shown measurable changes following EEG-NFB interventions. Non-athlete groups demonstrate similar cognitive improvements, including enhancements in working memory, inhibitory control, and sustained attention.

Despite these encouraging results, the review underscores that methodological variability remains a significant obstacle. Many studies lack rigorous sham conditions, rely on short-term pre–post assessments, or omit critical details about EEG parameters. Furthermore, none employed modern spectral parameterization techniques such as FOOOF, which separate periodic oscillatory activity from aperiodic components and improve interpretability of neural changes. These gaps pose challenges for neuroscientists, clinicians, and coaches seeking clear, actionable insights from the research.

As neurofeedback gains traction in applied neuroscience and sports performance enhancement, advances in methodology and transparency will be essential. The growing interest in portable EEG systems and real-world training protocols, particularly those used directly on the training field, points toward a future where neurofeedback is seamlessly embedded within athletic routines. This review provides a valuable foundation for refining how neurofeedback is studied, implemented, and ultimately used to support human performance.

Methods

The scoping review by Zacarias et al. employed a rigorous methodology aligned with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The authors implemented a prospectively registered protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF), which enhances transparency and ensures structured adherence to predefined procedures. The review utilized a broad search strategy across major scientific databases.

Study Selection

From 1779 records, screening dreastically reduced the number of eligible studies. Seventy full-text articles were assessed, of which 48 met inclusion criteria. Studies were required to involve adults (≥18 years) and include EEG-based neurofeedback as the primary intervention. Only studies with objective neurophysiological or validated cognitive outcomes were included. This meant excluding research relying solely on self-report measures, as well as studies with insufficient methodological descriptions or lacking peer review.

The study populations encompassed three broad groups: elite athletes, amateur athletes, and non-athletes, based on metabolic activity thresholds defined by the Compendium of Physical Activities. Sports represented ranged widely, from archery and golf to judo, cycling, rugby, swimming, and soccer.

Protocol Characteristics and Neurofeedback Methods

The review identified considerable heterogeneity in neurofeedback methods: targeted EEG rhythms, electrode montages, number and duration of sessions, frequency of training, and feedback modalities differed substantially. SMR (12–15 Hz) training was the most frequent protocol, particularly in sports requiring fine motor control and attentional stability. Theta/beta and alpha training were also common, while less traditional approaches, such as infra-low frequency (ILF) neurofeedback or customized protocols targeting event-related potentials, appeared in a minority of studies.

Training durations varied widely. Some studies used a single brief session (particularly in golf and soccer), whereas others implemented long-term training regimens spanning 12–20 sessions across several weeks. Electrode placements most frequently included Cz, C3, and C4, reflecting their relevance to sensorimotor integration and motor preparedness. Other studies targeted parietal and frontal regions, depending on the cognitive or motor domain of interest.

A central methodological theme concerned sham control conditions. Only 29% of the studies employed an active sham design, where participants received plausible but non-contingent feedback. An even smaller fraction (6%) used inert sham protocols fully disconnected from EEG signals, representing the gold standard for isolating neurofeedback-specific effects. Many studies opted for passive control groups or no control condition at all, limiting causal inference.

EEG Analysis and Reporting Practices

The review also highlighted limited transparency in EEG analysis pipelines. None of the studies used modern spectral parameterization techniques like FOOOF, which can differentiate between oscillatory activity and the 1/f aperiodic signal. Instead, all relied on traditional band-power approaches using fixed frequency boundaries, often without disclosing analytical parameters such as FFT window length, filtering methods, or artifact rejection criteria.

Furthermore, no studies preregistered hypotheses or made their data publicly available for reanalysis. Closed-source software and proprietary algorithms further impeded reproducibility. These methodological gaps underscore the need for more robust and transparent practices in both clinical and performance-based neurofeedback research.

Results

Across the 48 studies included in the review, the authors observed several consistent trends as well as substantial variability. Cognitive outcomes were reported in 43 of the studies, with attention, working memory, and executive function emerging as the most frequently measured domains. Neurophysiological outcomes were reported in 25 studies and included changes in EEG spectral power, event-related potentials (ERP), and measures derived from source localization such as LORETA.

Neurophysiological Findings

SMR and alpha protocols most consistently demonstrated changes in spectral power. For example, SMR increases at Cz were associated with improved putting accuracy in golfers and enhanced precision in shooting tasks. Alpha training, particularly over parietal sites, was linked to improved mental readiness, enhanced cognitive flexibility, and increased emotional stability.

Theta/beta ratio training yielded mixed results, with some studies reporting improvements in balance and reaction time, while others showed no significant changes. Event-related potential methods revealed enhancements in P3 and N2 amplitudes, reflecting improved cognitive control and inhibitory processes, although these findings were typically limited to case studies or small-sample designs.

Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes

Performance domains showing improvement included reaction time, sustained attention, sensorimotor coordination, and sport-specific skill execution (e.g., golf putting, judo response speed, rugby passing accuracy). Several studies demonstrated improvements in working memory and cognitive flexibility, particularly those involving higher-frequency training or combined modalities.

However, approximately one-third of the studies lacked any form of sham control, and nearly 40% did not include follow-up assessments. This limited interpretability of short-term effects and prevented conclusions about durability.

Methodological Observations

The review identified widespread limitations in methodological rigor, including insufficient blinding, lack of preregistration, limited reporting of EEG metrics, and poor reproducibility of analyses. Only a small number of studies included double-blind designs, and long-term ecological follow-ups were rare.

Despite these limitations, the aggregation of findings points toward modest but meaningful improvements in neurocognitive and performance metrics associated with EEG-NFB. However, the true magnitude and specificity of these effects remain uncertain.

Discussion

The evidence reviewed illustrates a promising but methodologically uneven landscape of EEG-NFB in sports and cognitive performance domains. Although numerous studies demonstrate improvements in attention, reaction time, mental readiness, and motor execution, the heterogeneity of protocols and limited use of rigorous controls challenge definitive conclusions.

Emerging evidence suggests that SMR-based neurofeedback may have particular value for tasks requiring fine motor precision and sustained focus. Similarly, alpha training appears beneficial for athletes facing high cognitive loads or requiring rapid visuospatial processing. These protocols align with long-standing theories linking oscillatory rhythms to motor preparation and cognitive control. Yet, the absence of standardized training parameters and inconsistent outcome measures means that variations in methodology may be driving some of the observed effects.

A notable concern arises from the limited use of sham controls. Without active or inert sham comparisons, it is difficult to distinguish genuine neurofeedback-driven learning from expectancy effects, heightened engagement, or generic skill acquisition. Given that fewer than one-third of studies implemented rigorous sham designs, overinterpretation of findings remains a risk.

Another critical observation relates to ecological validity. Field-based training protocols using portable EEG systems offer tremendous potential, allowing athletes to train in authentic performance contexts. However, motion artifacts, environmental noise, and challenges associated with data quality complicate interpretation. These trade-offs must be carefully managed to balance experimental control with real-world applicability.

Integrative Perspective for Applied Settings

When translating these findings into practice—particularly in clinical and performance-based neurofeedback—several key principles emerge:

• Emphasizing transparency and reproducibility will aid cumulative progress and reduce confusion arising from closed-source analytical tools.

• Implementing modern spectral analysis methods, particularly approaches like FOOOF, may clarify whether observed changes are due to oscillatory shifts or changes in the brain’s aperiodic background.

• Enhancing longitudinal design and ecological validity will support understanding of how well training gains translate into real-world performance.

• Combining neurofeedback with supportive modalities (e.g., biofeedback, HRV training, structured mental skills training) may increase robustness and transferability of effects.

These considerations reflect a maturing field that is beginning to transition from experimental inquiry to applied, evidence-based practice.

Brendan's Perspective

As we translate these findings into the lived reality of clinical and performance neurofeedback, several themes stand out, especially when working with athletes striving for cognitive clarity, emotional readiness, and motor precision under pressure.

Protocol Individualisation in Athletic Neurofeedback

One of the most important (and ironic) lessons from this review is the sheer variation across studies. Protocols differ in frequency ranges, session structure, electrode placements, and training goals. Athletes are not a homogenous group, even within the same sport. Two elite golfers may present entirely different regulatory challenges: one struggling with overactivation and performance anxiety, the other with lapses in sustained focus.

In clinical practice, this is where individualisation becomes indispensable. Instead of defaulting to an SMR protocol simply because it is widely used, we begin with a qEEG profile, a discussion of sport-specific cognitive demands, and a careful analysis of performance contexts. For some athletes, increasing SMR at Cz may indeed stabilise attention and improve finely tuned motor sequences. For others, especially those with a naturally high SMR baseline, alpha training across parietal regions may better support pre-performance calm and cognitive fluidity. Athletes with excessive frontal midline theta may require targeted training to improve executive control, whereas those who struggle with stress reactivity might benefit from beta downtraining paired with somatic biofeedback. The key is not simply what protocol we use, but why we use it for each athlete.

The review’s methodological heterogeneity reflects what clinicians already know: a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. The strongest outcomes emerge when neurofeedback is tailored with precision, guided by individual neural signatures, sport demands, and psychological tendencies.

The Gap Between Laboratory Neurofeedback and Ecological/Field-Based Training

One of the most striking contrasts in the reviewed literature lies in the difference between tightly controlled laboratory protocols and the realities of training with athletes in the field. Laboratory studies have clarity, experimental control, and cleaner EEG signals. But athletic performance does not live in a lab. It unfolds in dynamic, noisy environments filled with sensory load, emotional arousal, fatigue, and unpredictable variables.

This means that even the most beautifully controlled studies often reflect only a fraction of what athletes actually need. Field-based neurofeedback, performed during warm-ups, integrated into drills, or used immediately before performance, adds layers of ecological validity that laboratory settings cannot fully replicate.

Of course, the field introduces challenges: movement artifacts, unstable impedance, environmental noise, and the unpredictability of training sessions. But these are features, not bugs. They reflect the athlete’s world. The goal is not perfect EEG; it is meaningful neuroregulation within realistic contexts.

Clinical/research grade portable EEG systems (read: NOT consumer devices with magical dry electrodes) and short, strategically timed neurofeedback exposures are transforming how athletes train. In practice, integrating 3–5 minute bursts of SMR or alpha training between drills can reinforce regulation states far more relevant to real performance than static laboratory sessions ever could.

Combining Neurofeedback with Biofeedback for Athlete Regulation

Neurofeedback does not exist in isolation, and athletes rarely struggle with cognitive regulation alone. Stress physiology, autonomic balance, and emotional reactivity all feed into performance. When neurofeedback is combined with biofeedback modalities—particularly HRV training, respiration training, skin conductance awareness, and temperature training—the effects are often more robust.

For athletes, this multimodal approach provides advantages such as:

• Greater emotional stability under pressure;

• Improved adaptability to stressors during competition;

• Enhanced cognitive clarity when fatigued;

• Stronger interoceptive awareness and self-regulation skills;

• More efficient transitions between activation and recovery states.

In practice, pairing SMR training with HRV biofeedback can help athletes manage arousal more effectively during competition. Training alpha regulation alongside breathwork improves pre-performance calm. Integrating GSR biofeedback with beta downregulation supports emotional control under high demand.

This synergy between biofeedback and neurofeedback not only enhances learning, but also helps athletes internalize regulation skills they can deploy instantly during real-world performance.

Conclusion

The scoping review by Zacarias et al. provides a comprehensive look at the current landscape of EEG-based neurofeedback across athletic and non-athletic populations. The evidence highlights meaningful potential for improving cognitive performance, attentional control, and motor precision. However, the review also exposes substantial methodological limitations—particularly concerning sham controls, ecological validity, and outdated EEG analysis techniques.

As the field evolves, the integration of modern tools such as spectral parameterization, rigorous sham designs, and ecologically grounded training platforms will be essential. For clinicians and performance practitioners, this means adopting a more individualized, multimodal, and context-sensitive approach—one that acknowledges the complexity of athletic performance and leverages both neural and physiological learning pathways.

Ultimately, neurofeedback’s promise lies not just in the modulation of EEG rhythms, but in its capacity to foster deeper self-regulation, heightened cognitive flexibility, and enhanced resilience under pressure. When combined with biofeedback and tailored to the unique demands of each athlete, it becomes a powerful tool for optimizing human potential.

The trajectory of the field is clear: with better science, more transparent methodology, and integrative clinical practices, neurofeedback will continue to grow as a transformative approach to performance enhancement.

References

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"