https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/eeg-neurofeedback-score Changes to this claim in Matteo Campagna's evidence registry: its status, its year-by-year history, revisions of the page. en-gb https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/eeg-neurofeedback-scoreThe only controlled trial on archers whose original data can be read goes against the claim. Twenty-four Indian university archers, twelve doing twelve sessions of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback over four weeks and twelve doing nothing, shoot a 72-arrow competition at 70 metres before and after: the trained group goes from 527.3 to 529.9 points, the control group from 526.6 to 526.7, and there is no difference between the groups (p = 0.561). The trained signal, on the other hand, does move: the ratio of sensorimotor rhythm to theta rises more than in the controls. A 2024 narrative review paints a more favourable picture, with an early-1990s study of twenty-four pre-elite archers in which correct feedback raises the score and feedback tied to the opposite hemisphere lowers it, but it describes the Indian study as an improvement in accuracy and consistency in twenty-eight archers, which is not what the original paper shows. In the other precision sports the results are mixed: biathletes and ten-pin bowlers do not improve, women darts players do. What can be said today is that neurofeedback changes the signal it trains, not that it raises the score.claim:neurofeedback-punteggio:revision:2026-08-20:2Thu, 20 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/eeg-neurofeedback-scoreclaim:neurofeedback-punteggio:new_claim:2026-06-29:contraddettoMon, 29 Jun 2026 08:00:00 GMT