fMRI Neurofeedback-Enhanced Cognitive Reappraisal Training in Depression: A Double-Blind Comparison of Left and Right vlPFC Regulation

Affective disorders are associated with maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. In particular, the left more than the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) may insufficiently regulate emotion processing, e.g., in the amygdala. A double-blind cross-over study investigated NF-supported cognitive reappraisal training in major depression (n = 42) and age- and gender-matched controls (n = 39). In a randomized order, participants trained to upregulate either the left or the right vlPFC during cognitive reappraisal of negative images on two separate days. We wanted to confirm regional specific NF effects with improved learning for left compared to right vlPFC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03183947). Brain responses and connectivity were studied with respect to training progress, gender, and clinical outcomes in a 4-week follow-up. Increase of vlPFC activity was stronger after NF training from the left- than the right-hemispheric ROI. This regional-specific NF effect during cognitive reappraisal was present across patients with depression and controls and supports a central role of the left vlPFC for cognitive reappraisal. Further, the activity in the left target region was associated with increased use of cognitive reappraisal strategies (r = 0.48). In the 4-week follow-up, 75% of patients with depression reported a successful application of learned strategies in everyday life and 55% a clinically meaningful symptom improvement suggesting clinical usability.

The “Missing 6 dB” Revisited: Influence of Room Acoustics and Binaural Parameters on the Loudness Mismatch Between Headphones and Loudspeakers

Generations of researchers observed a mismatch between headphone and loudspeaker presentation: the sound pressure level at the eardrum generated by a headphone has to be about 6 dB higher compared to the level created by a loudspeaker that elicits the same loudness. While it has been shown that this effect vanishes if the same waveforms are generated at the eardrum in a blind comparison, the origin of the mismatch is still unclear. We present new data on the issue that systematically characterize this mismatch under variation of the stimulus frequency, presentation room, and binaural parameters of the headphone presentation. Subjects adjusted the playback level of a headphone presentation to equal loudness as loudspeaker presentation, and the levels at the eardrum were determined through appropriate transfer function measurements. Identical experiments were conducted at Oldenburg and Aachen with 40 normal-hearing subjects including 14 that passed through both sites. Our data verify a mismatch between loudspeaker and binaural headphone presentation, especially at low frequencies. This mismatch depends on the room acoustics, and on the interaural coherence in both presentation modes. It vanishes for high frequencies and broadband signals if individual differences in the sound transfer to the eardrums are accounted for. Moreover, small acoustic and non-acoustic differences in an anechoic reference environment (Oldenburg vs. Aachen) exert a large effect on the recorded loudness mismatch, whereas not such a large effect of the respective room is observed across moderately reverberant rooms at both sites. Hence, the non-conclusive findings from the literature appear to be related to the experienced disparity between headphone and loudspeaker presentation, where even small differences in (anechoic) room acoustics significantly change the response behavior of the subjects. Moreover, individual factors like loudness summation appear to be only loosely connected to the observed mismatch, i.e., no direct prediction is possible from individual binaural loudness summation to the observed mismatch. These findings – even though not completely explainable by the yet limited amount of parameter variations performed in this study – have consequences for the comparability of experiments using loudspeakers with conditions employing headphones or other ear-level hearing devices.

Are flood damage models converging to “reality”? Lessons learnt from a blind test

Effective flood risk management requires a realistic estimation of flood losses. However, available flood damage estimates are still characterized by significant levels of uncertainty, questioning the capacity of flood damage models to depict real damages. With a joint effort of eight international research groups, the objective of this study was to compare, in a blind-validation test, the performances of different models for the assessment of the direct flood damage to the residential sector at the building level (i.e. microscale). The test consisted of a common flood case study characterized by high availability of hazard and building data but with undisclosed information on observed losses in the implementation stage of the models. The nine selected models were chosen in order to guarantee a good mastery of the models by the research teams, variety of the modelling approaches, and heterogeneity of the original calibration context in relation to both hazard and vulnerability features. By avoiding possible biases in model implementation, this blind comparison provided more objective insights on the transferability of the models and on the reliability of their estimations, especially regarding the potentials of local and multivariable models. From another perspective, the exercise allowed us to increase awareness of strengths and limits of flood damage modelling, which are summarized in the paper in the form of take-home messages from a modeller's perspective.