Neurofeedback

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Neurofeedback

#1  Postby aban57 » Jan 03, 2017 1:41 pm

In the study of attention disorder, I stumbled upon this technique that seems to give pretty interesting results. Wikipedia says the following :

Research[edit]
Moss, LeVaque, and Hammond (2004) observed that "Biofeedback and neurofeedback seem to offer the kind of evidence-based practice that the healthcare establishment is demanding."[154][155] "From the beginning biofeedback developed as a research-based approach emerging directly from laboratory research on psychophysiology and behavior therapy, The ties of biofeedback/neurofeedback to the biomedical paradigm and to research are stronger than is the case for many other behavioral interventions" (p. 151).[156]
The Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) and the International Society for Neurofeedback and Research (ISNR) have collaborated in validating and rating treatment protocols to address questions about the clinical efficacy of biofeedback and neurofeedback applications, like ADHD and headache. In 2001, Donald Moss, then president of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, and Jay Gunkelman, president of the International Society for Neurofeedback and Research, appointed a task force to establish standards for the efficacy of biofeedback and neurofeedback.
The Task Force document was published in 2002,[157] and a series of white papers followed, reviewing the efficacy of a series of disorders.[158] The white papers established the efficacy of biofeedback for functional anorectal disorders,[159] attention deficit disorder,[160] facial pain and temporomandibular joint dysfunction,[161] hypertension,[162] urinary incontinence,[163] Raynaud's phenomenon,[164] substance abuse,[165] and headache.[166]
A broader review was published[167] and later updated,[21] applying the same efficacy standards to the entire range of medical and psychological disorders. The 2008 edition reviewed the efficacy of biofeedback for over 40 clinical disorders, ranging from alcoholism/substance abuse to vulvar vestibulitis. The ratings for each disorder depend on the nature of research studies available on each disorder, ranging from anecdotal reports to double blind studies with a control group. Thus, a lower rating may reflect the lack of research rather than the ineffectiveness of biofeedback for the problem.
The randomized trial by Dehli et al. compared if the injection of a bulking agent in the anal canal was superior to sphincter training with biofeedback to treat fecal incontinence. Both methods lead to an improvement of FI, but comparisons of St Mark's scores between the groups showed no differences in effect between treatments.[168]


Efficacy[edit]
Yucha and Montgomery's (2008) ratings are listed for the five levels of efficacy recommended by a joint Task Force and adopted by the Boards of Directors of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology (AAPB) and the International Society for Neuronal Regulation (ISNR).[157] From weakest to strongest, these levels include: not empirically supported, possibly efficacious, probably efficacious, efficacious, and efficacious and specific.
Level 1: Not empirically supported. This designation includes applications supported by anecdotal reports and/or case studies in non-peer-reviewed venues. Yucha and Montgomery (2008) assigned eating disorders, immune function, spinal cord injury, and syncope to this category.[21]
Level 2: Possibly efficacious. This designation requires at least one study of sufficient statistical power with well-identified outcome measures but lacking randomized assignment to a control condition internal to the study. Yucha and Montgomery (2008) assigned asthma, autism, Bell palsy, cerebral palsy, COPD, coronary artery disease, cystic fibrosis, depression, erectile dysfunction, fibromyalgia, hand dystonia, irritable bowel syndrome, PTSD, repetitive strain injury, respiratory failure, stroke, tinnitus, and urinary incontinence in children to this category.[21]
Level 3: Probably efficacious. This designation requires multiple observational studies, clinical studies, waitlist-controlled studies, and within subject and intrasubject replication studies that demonstrate efficacy. Yucha and Montgomery (2008) assigned alcoholism and substance abuse, arthritis, diabetes mellitus, fecal disorders in children, fecal incontinence in adults, insomnia, pediatric headache, traumatic brain injury, urinary incontinence in males, and vulvar vestibulitis (vulvodynia) to this category.[21]
Level 4: Efficacious. This designation requires the satisfaction of six criteria:
(a) In a comparison with a no-treatment control group, alternative treatment group, or sham (placebo) control using randomized assignment, the investigational treatment is shown to be statistically significantly superior to the control condition or the investigational treatment is equivalent to a treatment of established efficacy in a study with sufficient power to detect moderate differences.
(b) The studies have been conducted with a population treated for a specific problem, for whom inclusion criteria are delineated in a reliable, operationally defined manner.
(c) The study used valid and clearly specified outcome measures related to the problem being treated.
(d) The data are subjected to appropriate data analysis.
(e) The diagnostic and treatment variables and procedures are clearly defined in a manner that permits replication of the study by independent researchers.
(f) The superiority or equivalence of the investigational treatment has been shown in at least two independent research settings.
Yucha and Montgomery (2008) assigned attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, chronic pain, epilepsy, constipation (adult), headache (adult), hypertension, motion sickness, Raynaud's disease, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction to this category.[21]
Level 5: Efficacious and specific. The investigational treatment must be shown to be statistically superior to credible sham therapy, pill, or alternative bona fide treatment in at least two independent research settings. Yucha and Montgomery (2008) assigned urinary incontinence (females) to this category.[21]


In a healthcare environment that emphasizes cost containment and evidence-based practice, biofeedback and neurofeedback professionals continue to address skepticism in the medical community about the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of their treatments. Critics question how these treatments compare with conventional behavioral and medical interventions on efficacy and cost. The publication of white papers and rigorous evaluation of biofeedback interventions can address these legitimate questions and educate medical professionals, third-party payers, and the public about the value of these services.[169]


What's a "white paper" ?
Does anyone here have more precise information, regarding the effectiveness of the results, and/or potential downsides ?
User avatar
aban57
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Cédric
Posts: 3951
Age: 38

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Neurofeedback

#2  Postby archibald » Jan 03, 2017 1:53 pm

"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9012
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Neurofeedback

#3  Postby aban57 » Jan 03, 2017 2:21 pm

thanks :)
User avatar
aban57
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Cédric
Posts: 3951
Age: 38

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post


Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest