The role of superstition of cognitive control during neurofeedback training - part 2

This dataset contains the raw 3 Tesla fMRI data and T1 structural images of 40 healthy adults. All participants were students at university.
This dataset was used for the preprint "Grössinger, D., Fischmeister, F. P. S., Witte, M., Koschutnig, K., Ninaus, M., Neuper, C., Kober, S.E. & Wood, G. (2021). The role of superstition of cognitive control during neurofeedback training. bioRxiv, 2021-09. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.14.460252"
The task employed in the present study was comparable to procedures adopted during real-time fMRI neurofeedback training, except that the feedback presented to participants was sham. Participants were told that their brain activity was directly coupled to the bar movements and that in some conditions, they should control the position of the bar while not moving their body or eyes. In this active experimental condition, “control moving bars”, participants were asked to increase the middle bar presented on the visual display while keeping the two outer bars low. In the two other conditions, participants were asked to monitor the bars, only. In the high-level control condition “monitor moving bars”, participants were asked not to interfere with the middle bar movements but to monitor them passively. In the low-level control condition “monitor static bars”, participants were asked again just to observe the bars, which remained static for the duration of the block.
Each trial started with a cross-hair presented for about 18.5s (random jitter from 17 to 20s). Participants then received the instructional cue words “control” or “monitor” for another 3s before the bar display was visible. The feedback-bar was presented for 20s. Immediately following the active control task, participants were asked to rate their level of control on a 5-point rating scale with the anchor words “no control” and “full control”. Each condition was repeated five times, the order of presentation of the three experimental conditions was randomized per subject.

The codes of the participants included in the analysis are listed hereafter:
sub-01
sub-02
sub-03
sub-04
sub-05
sub-08
sub-11
sub-12
sub-13
sub-14
sub-15
sub-16
sub-19
sub-22
sub-26
sub-29
sub-31
sub-35
sub-36
sub-39
42_NM04_2_1_06
42_NM04_2_1_07
42_NM04_2_1_09
42_NM04_2_1_10
42_NM04_2_1_17
42_NM04_2_1_18
42_NM04_2_1_20
42_NM04_2_1_21
42_NM04_2_1_23
42_NM04_2_1_24
42_NM04_2_1_25
42_NM04_2_1_27
42_NM04_2_1_28
42_NM04_2_1_30
42_NM04_2_1_32
42_NM04_2_1_33
42_NM04_2_1_34
42_NM04_2_1_37
42_NM04_2_1_38
42_NM04_2_1_40