ReviewNeuroSci2026
Neurofeedback in Football: A Systematic Review of Cognitive, Technical, Physical and Psychological Outcomes.
Review in NeuroSci, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review synthesized the existing evidence on neurofeedback interventions applied to football players, aiming to clarify their effects on cognitive, technical-tactical, physical and psychological performance. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and SportsDiscus) were searched up to November 2025. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 133 players across youth, amateur, national and elite levels. Neurofeedback protocols primarily targeted alpha or sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) activity, and some were combined with heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback. Across studies, neurofeedback may be associated with improvements in several cognitive outcomes, including improvements in working memory, visuospatial memory, task switching, mental rotation and decision-making. Limited evidence suggests potential improvements in technical skills (particularly shooting accuracy) and tactical decision-making. Some studies reported changes in physiological markers and stress-recovery capacity, although their interpretation remains uncertain. However, the evidence base remains constrained by small samples, heterogeneous protocols and limited use of randomized controlled designs. Overall, neurofeedback appears to be a potentially promising but still experimental tool to support cognitive and psychophysiological readiness in football, warranting more rigorous and standardized research to establish efficacy and optimal training parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.