Guilherme M. De O. M. De O. Wood

This study examines cognitive warfare through the lens of critical neuroscience and situates it within peace research as a methodological contribution. Cognitive warfare-understood as the strategic modulation of perception, belief, and decision-making-highlights how the human mind has become a contested domain of contemporary conflict. The weaponization of neuroscience unfolds within sociocultural contexts where empirical findings, theoretical interpretations, and normative commitments are deeply entangled. Drawing on Johan Galtung’s epistemological triad of data, theory, and values, I propose a framework for analyzing cognitive warfare that makes explicit the normative dimensions of neuroscientific knowledge. This perspective highlights not only the weaponization of neuroscience itself, but also of its reputation: exaggerated claims and neuropolitical imaginaries can shape expectations, distort public discourse, and erode trust in science independently of actual technological capabilities. Applying this framework, the study examines resilience and solidarity as two domains in which empirical mechanisms, theoretical interpretations, and normative priors intersect. Cognitive warfare is shown to undermine resilience by destabilizing shared models of reality, while evolutionary and social dynamics demonstrate the long-term advantages of cooperation, reciprocity, and generosity over manipulation and defection. By integrating critical neuroscience with peace research, the article advances an expanded notion of peace as the safeguarding of mental and social autonomy-conditions under which cognition remains free from systematic manipulation and capable of sustaining cooperative forms of life.

Electroencephalography-neurofeedback has become a valuable tool in the field of psychology, e.g., to improve cognitive function. Nevertheless, a large percentage of NF users seem to be unable to control their own brain activation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine whether a different kind of visual feedback could positively influence NF performance after one training session. Virtual reality seems to have beneficial training effects and has already been reported to increase motivational training aspects. In the present study, we tested 61 young healthy adults to investigate, whether 3D VR-based NF training has a more beneficial effect on the sensorimotor rhythm power increase than a mere 2D conventional NF paradigm. In the 3D group, participants had to roll a ball along a predefined path in an immersive virtual environment, whereas the 2D group had to increase the height of a bar. Both paradigms were presented using VR goggles. Participants completed one baseline and six feedback runs with 3 min each, in which they should try to increase SMR power over Cz. Half of the participants received real feedback whereas the other half received sham feedback. Participants receiving 3D VR-based feedback showed a linear increase in SMR power over the feedback runs within one training session. This was the case for the real as well as for the sham 3D feedback group and might be related to more general VR-related effects. The 2D group receiving the conventional bar feedback showed no changes in SMR power over the feedback runs. The present study underlines that the visual feedback modality has differential effects on the NF training performance and that 3D VR-based feedback has advantages over conventional 2D feedback.

Modulating connectivity measures in EEG-based neurofeedback studies is assumed to be a promising therapeutic and training tool. However, little is known so far about its effects and trainability. In the present study, we investigated the effects of up- and down-regulating SMR coherence by means of neurofeedback training on EEG activity and memory functions. Twenty adults performed 10 neurofeedback training sessions in which half of them tried to increase EEG coherence between Cz and CPz in the SMR frequency range, while the other half tried to down-regulate coherence. Up-regulation of SMR coherence led to between- and within-session changes in EEG coherence. SMR power increased across neurofeedback training sessions but not within training sessions. Cross-over training effects on baseline EEG measures were also observed in this group. Up-regulation of SMR coherence was also associated with improvements in memory functions when comparing pre- and post-test results. Participants were not able to down-regulate SMR coherence. This group did not show any changes in baseline EEG measures or memory functions comparing pre- and post-test. Our results provide insights in the trainability and effects of connectivity-based neurofeedback training and indications for its practical application.