Talk:Neurofeedback/Archive 1

Last page revert done because the newer version looked like a copy vio. -- Graham  :) 19:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV? I think some of the statements on this page are optimistic and/or open to debate. -- Jay (Histrion) 18:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The external links are to sites provided by manufacturers or individual professionals (biocybernaut). It would be better to reference the professional organizations involved: www.isnr.org www.aapb.org www.ecnsweb.com www.bcia.org Psydoc 07:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Neurofeedback works but has been as ignored as Dr. Masuru Emoto's startling discoveries.

This article reads like an advertisement for neurofeedback products. Please read NPOV for more information on how to write an unbiased article. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy treatment using neurofeedback. When examining EEG biofeedback, aka neurofeedback aka neurotherapy, one should examine the extensive bibliography published at www.isnr.org. This bibliography is an extension of the original work of Prof. Dr. Jiri Tyl at the University of Prague and is chiefly composed of refereed articles published in first rate journals.

B. Sterman was contracted with the U.S. Navy to discover how it was that healthy well-trained pilots were flying well maintained superior aircraft into crashes. He had been working on seizure, and reviewed what he had done with his experimental animals. He noted that even though certain cats were given IV injections of a significant amount of hydrazine (a potent epileptogenic drug) that the cats did not seize. He had earlier, for different purposes, trained these cats to produce sensorimotor rhythm (essentially 13-14 hz) at the cat equivalent of C-3 and C-4 on the Ten 20 scheme for human EEG.

Sterman demonstrated that human epileptics decrease the intensity and the frequency of seizure after training the amplitude of 13-14 Hz to increase and the amplitude of <8 Hz to decrease. Sterman's work was replicated by Tansey.

Quirk and von Hilsheimer demonstrated by training 2776 felons at the Ontario Correctional Institute, and an equivalent number at the Green Valley Psychiatric Hospital that violent criminals were rearrested for violent crime at a rate only 15% as great as before training to reduce the amplitude of <8Hz and to increase the amplitude of 13-14Hz.

Moved stuff from Electroencephalography

I moved the bulk of the neurofeedback stuff from Electroencephalography here. If you want add further references, have a look the old version of that article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electroencephalography&oldid=13717803} --Pjacobi 00:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Greetings! How do I revert the previous "Image:Neurofeedback_and_Remote_Seduction.JPG" image? I think it looked very appropriate to that part of the article! RegardsNRaja 09:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That image has been deleted. - Omegatron 13:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! So it is possible to make some material unrevertable. NRaja 08:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Only content like images and sound clips, though. Deleted pages can still be undeleted by administrators. - Omegatron 13:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this controversy died down. I am editing this on 24 Mar 06. EMDR is measurement of GSR, skin conductance (or resistance, they are algebraically equal). EMDR has been proved to be extremely efficacious, for example in the work of D.A. Quirk at the Queen Street Hospital, intensifying the work of Mary Cover Jones, q.v., and of Wolpe, q.v., by automating desensitization using the GSR as a guide (See "Treating the Untreatable" at www.drbiofeedback.com)

Neurofeedback is a fancy name for EEG biofeedback which has also come to be called neurotherapy. The efficacy of EEG biofeedback is widely documented and an extensive bibliography can be found at www.isnr.org which is an updating of Prof. Dr. Jiri Tyl's exhaustive bibliography done a few years ago at the University of Prague.

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H. doing EEG BF since 1959, daily since 1974 my biography may be read in any Who's Who in America, in Science and Technology, or in Medicine and Health Care - these are not vanity publications.

people keep updating this page with incorrect information. EMDR is not the same thing as neurofeedback. the section on rhythmic stimuli absolutely does not belong on this page. why do people keep adding it? the english sentences may be competent, but the information is unrelated.

and now this article is completely stupid. wikipedia is usually a really awesome source. this article is full of politics, focuses too heavily on all the hype (and its validity), and is now a raging argument over which prominent names are involved. this has become a message board, which i didn't think was the intention. the beginning gets really technical about one particular goal of brainwave frequency choices, as if to imply that "relaxation" is truly the focus of this technology (which lends further to the subtle implication that those who've composed this article are spelling out their belief in the "quackery" of the technology, since most of the obnoxious new-agey/hippy/unscientific/hype stuff tends to discuss relaxation, rather than most of the uses obtained from neuropsychologists and industry leading doctors and researchers). i don't really think the main point of the article is what everyone thinks about it. that component exists, because the technology as it is described by the scientists who use it is up against much skepticism, and the article should by no means omit that to imply this is considered tried-and-true. but the skepticism/criticism should really stay in its own sandbox. isn't that the wikipedia way? aren't there other places for everyone to squabble, slander, and advertise?

I think this is just a case of crackpots far outnumbering legitimate researchers. I guess that means we have to wait around for a legitimate researcher who will add referenced, legitimate things, and then help us defend the page against the cranks.

Unfortunately, they all consider themselves legitimate.  :-) - Omegatron 00:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see what you are getting at. But it is clear that wikipedia does not really have any mechanism for shouting "illegitimate" at people or groups. Also, I don't think neurofeedback being associated with scientology is any particular slander or criticism. It is just a documented fact. And scientology is involved in neurofeedback research perhaps for its own reasons, or perhaps for the good of all. Of course you can soften any bad connotations as people do on these wikipages, or you can infer all kinds of negative stuff. But have a little faith in the wikipedia process, I'm sure all will be fine and balanced long term.

As regards crackpots etc, I did see an interesting documentary "Brain Story" with Susan Greenfield, and there was a reputable and well published scientist there explaining possible associations between religious experience and brainwaves. Scientology makes similar kinds of claims as do yogis etc. So neurofeedback really does deserve some broad-mindedness and patience as the research is still in its infancy. Regards EBlack 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Applications

I see a lot of applications for neurofeedback in the literature. For example, psychic seduction, penis enlargement, IQ increase, and other more occult applications. I think they should have a mention here. After all, we should have a representative sample. Oliver Y 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Please give us the references. --Pjacobi 11:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I have posted just a representative handful of links to companies advertising neurofeedback as technologically oriented methods for increasing mindpower, psychic abilities, remote viewing, spiritual awareness, past life regression, etc. I have some literature from a library search to further support this aspect of neurofeedback and its presence in the world. I also removed some npov. Regards Oliver Y 05:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have found this article to be unfairly baised against the legitimate use of Neurofeedback training - Note the fact that the references lists only one credible neurofeedback resource and FOUR scientology sources?? To be sure, the scientific community is in debate as to the efficacy of neurofeedback for certain disorders; however, at this point in the research it's efficacy for certain anxiety disorders, seizure disorders, addictions, and especially for improving ADD/ADHD has been quite conclusively proven time and again. See, this site:

http://www.neurodevelopmentcenter.com/index.php?id=82

to view the January 2005 *peer reviewed* edition of the Child and Adolescent Clinics of North America Journal which provides the reader "the most up to date information about the *science* related to neurofeedback and the range of clinical applications for which there is empirical research" (*italics* my own).

Another peer reviewed article which explains the difficulty of doing double blind placebo tests with this kind of intervention can be found at:

http://www.neurodevelopmentcenter.com/uploads/CPU-Lead.pdf

While there are those whose claims have tarnished this intervention approach, Neurofeedback is not merely psuedo-science as some here seem to think. There are many studies out there in peer reviewed journals which point to it's efficacy.

Sincerely db

Scientology

Scientology uses a ElectroencephaloNEUROmentimograph (e-meter). The device is similar to the normal EEG meters in that the claim is that it measures brain activity. It measures electrical changes related to neurons, or nerves. Scientology adheres to the same kind of mind body connection as all the other advocates of neurofeedback. The scientific findings of efficacy are about the same also. EBlack 12:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The E-meter doesn't measure neuronal activity. It measures skin resistance. Therefore the Scientology practices are unrelated to this article. You may check, wether you want to contribute to Biofeedback instead. --Pjacobi 18:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Or just direct your contributions to the E-meter article, where they belong. - Omegatron 18:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see your point of distinction. But I was also making that distinction for the purpose of clarity. EBlack 02:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The E-meter is a galvanic skin response meter. It really has nothing to do with neurofeedback at all. Maybe biofeedback, but I doubt it. - Omegatron 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neurofeedback is exactly that. Neuro - nerves or neurons, and feedback. The e-meter is used to measure mental activity and provide feedback, which it does. The EEG is simply a digital version of a galvanometer (take a look at the development of EEGs). Technically speaking, the e-meter measures EEGs, but at a lower frequency. It is exactly relevant here, and I have made the effort to distinguish it. EBlack 03:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Scientology auditing is neurofeedback. And the overlap is larger than you think. The e-meter does pick up EEGs and it provides feedback for the subject to be able to reproduce the same response at will (alledgedly for identifying and avoiding traumas). After a number of sessions, they will supposedly be able to change their own brainwave patterns (with the same results as in more modern research). Auditors do refer to their methods as neurofeedback. The theory is very similar to that proposed in the disease model. Modern EEG feedback machines are the same as analogue galvanometers exept that the displays are on fancy oscilliscopes or computer screens. E-meters are also moving in this direction. Therefore, scientology is very relevant here, even if it does sound inconvenient to the posting braintraining equipment sellers and technoshamen. D.Right 04:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (not a Tom Cruise fan:)

Yes, to be fairly equitable, scientology is a form of neurofeedback and does use EEGs in order to highten awareness of feedback. I am thinking that the definition needs a little clarification. Especially as the scientific reviews on the subject conclude that neurofeedback is inconclusive. In which case, other forms of neurofeedback should be taken into account. Scientology is referred to as neurofeedback in general, and the claims are the same, in theory and in results. So it really is relevant here. NRaja 12:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Go read galvanic skin response and EEG again. A galvanic skin response is a measurement of the resistance of the skin. An EEG is a measurement of the voltage on the scalp. They aren't the same thing at all. - Omegatron 13:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Before the mass deletions are reverted any further, I suggest you use this discussion page and discuss. An EEG uses the same principles as a galvanometer to measure voltage across the scalp. They do the same thing, and have the same principles. Neuro and feedback. If you want to be more convincing in your arguments against scientology using neurofeedback you would do better than post directions to feeble wikipedia pages that say nothing more than is advertised by manufacturers. Remember. You are communicating with experts. Until all of the issues of this scientology section are convincingly tackled (and I am no scientologist either) the page will advance in its present direction. Your's patiently EBlack 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

An EEG measures voltages originating in neurons. The E-meter and similiar devices measure electrical impedance of the tissue (volume conductivity) plus the contact impedance. Your experts argument is fine with me, I'm have a Masters degree (actually a german Diplom) in physics and I'm designing EEG systems commercially. --Pjacobi 16:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And I've a Bachelor's in Electrical Eng. and working on a hobbyist EEG project. - Omegatron 17:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I am a Doctor of information systems. Not at all biased towards neurofeedback, scientology, biofeedback etc either way. How about you consider the actual qualitative nature of neurofeedback. What people really think it means, and what it is actually used for. In addition to that, why don't you come clean and consider the tightly covarying relationships between voltage, current and resistance? Considering the first point, scientologists are interested in measuring mental traumas, so they get a feedback machine, and a little help, so they can get some feedback. The feedback is considered to be neural according to the scientologists. Now consider what some scientists have measured using "alledgedly" proper EEG meters. Are they really that much more accurate? Do they really illicit responses that are better? Not according to the research I have read. It all looks like they made a confounded pigs ear of it, and not just to me, but to a great many other scientists. COnsidering the V=IR conundrum, well this should explain in mathematical terms why the e-meter should be included in this article, at least for clarification purposes. Now what about those issues that still stand? EBlack 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The impedance measured by an e-meter depends on a lot of factors, starting with sweating. It is allegedly linked to the autonomous nervous system, but the link was to weak to be useful for e.g. anesthesia monitoring.

EEG is not affected by impedance, as it is a voltage generated inside the cranium and next to no current is flowing. Only the amount of mains interference is affected by imbalances in electrode impedances, as this makes the differential amplifier unbalanced and sends the CMRR down.

Also note, that "mental" isn't "neural". So Scientology claiming to measure mental trauma by skin resistance is fine a bona fide minority POV, but no voltages generated by neurons are in this equatation.

And looking from a systematic point if view: Why do you thing there are separate articles on biofeedback and neurofeedback? Neurofeedback is a special case of biofeedback, because the measurement reports directly on the nervous system.

Pjacobi 17:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thats precisely my point. Scientologists believe that the e-meter does provide them with enough feedback, whether it is directly through the EEG that can be measured by galvanometer, or by any other electrical nerve or neural feedback through electricity resistance, mojo, or whatever. They still train themselves with the belief that they are receiving neural feedback, and so they can alter their own electrical and mental state, brainwaves, avoid traumas etc. Neurofeedback advocates BELIEVE that they provide better feedback using EEG devices and computers etc, although the research is moot. Now all that remains to be done is to balance and qualify these points in the article. Regards EBlack 18:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Now consider what some scientists have measured using "alledgedly" proper EEG meters. Are they really that much more accurate?"

Are you trying to compare galvanic skin response E-meters with a professional EEG?

No, not directly. I am saying that scientologists believe that they get neural feedback from their methods, and they use it to train themselves.

"Not according to the research I have read."

And what research is that?

The reviews of research on a Proquest database. Mostly conclusive statements about "the truth is out there".

"Now what about those issues that still stand?"

Please list the issues you have with the article as it currently stands. - Omegatron 17:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Here are some: EEGs use a galvanometer- like instrument. EEG machines were developed from galvanometers. The mind body connection principle applies. Neurofeedback involves neurons and feedback, e-meters deal with both, and specific mental training. There is a huge overlap between scientology and neurofeedback, even as it applies to modern research. The training principles are similar. The claimed responses or results are the same (relaxation, IQ increase, spiritual exploration, creativity, memory etc). The disease model used in neurofeedback articles is similar to scientologist’s “theology”. Scientologists also use “proper” neurofeedback machines in some places. EBlack 18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Uggh!

• EEG uses a high impedance (10^10 Ohm) differential voltage amplifiers to measure voltages produced by neuronal mass. It's not sensitive to impedances in its regular mode of operation.
• E-meters don't deal with neurons.
• If only the training principles are similiar, your contributions should go to biofeedback, as the differenmce between biofeedback and neurofeedback is the measurement, not the training.
• Despite this article being a general mess, there are applications of neurofeedback with totally mainstream disease models, e.g to train epileptics for seizure prevention.

Pjacobi 18:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I think the learned lady is saying that scientology people believe they are dealing with the nerves or neurons. They rely upon this belief. Also, I think you have your facts a little off. E-meters do deal with nerves and neurons amongst other things. I would say, based on science, the scientologists do have good reason to believe they are dealing with neurons (amongst other things) for their feedback. Which is why the e-meter is being developed more in that direction. NRaja 18:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside of brain, neurons don't make up enough mass to significantly influence impedance measurements. Also, please provide a reference that Scientology doctrine states, that an E-meter measures neuronal activity, in contrast to mental state, what they are claiming. --Pjacobi 18:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

EEGs use a galvanometer- like instrument.

No they don't.

EEG machines were developed from galvanometers.

No they weren't. You can say they are the same thing until you turn blue, but it's not going to suddenly become true.

Actually, it already suddenly became true back in history (look at the history section), and more recently EEG meters are often built in conjunction with galanometers in order to obtain better neuronal readings. Oliver Y 06:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't confuse a galvanometer with the galvanic skin response. They're not the same thing. Not the same as a galvanic cell or galvanic anode or galvanism or galvanized steel, either.

Maybe that's where this confusion is coming from? A galvanometer is just a current-measuring device. The only connection to a galvanic skin response is that you could use the meter for your output display. - Omegatron 13:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No confusion. Here are some relevant links to research. [1] [2]

Regards Oliver Y 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the research looks solid. Certainly it shows that neurofeedback is not as exclusively "Neuron-EEG" as you made it out to be. The skin response factor is extremely important for feedback. Cheers Oliver Y 03:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The mind body connection principle applies.

Please explain how the "mind body connection principle" applies to E-meters more than it applies to, say, driving a car or playing darts. Provide references.

Neurofeedback involves neurons and feedback, e-meters deal with both, and specific mental training.

Nope. E-meters measure the resistance of skin.

The training principles are similar.

Possibly, but you'll have to back that up with facts. - Omegatron 19:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Scientologists believe that they use neurofeedback. They rely on this kind of information to back it up http://home.swipnet.se/allez/NS/Deutsch.htm

Basically, like any group they will rely on stories, history and social memory. It doesn't matter whether they are correct or not. The fact is, their methods are a kind of neurofeedback whether indirect or not. If you want to put them right in writing, then go for it. There is space on the article for writing that kind of thing. EBlack 19:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Scientologists also believe that Xenu, the ruler of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of frozen people to Earth 75 million years ago in Douglas DC-8s, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Doesn't mean we have to crap up those three articles with their beliefs. If we are going to mention it at all, it will be like the mention of Scientology in the DC-8 article; a small section at the end of this article devoted to fringe beliefs about neurofeedback. - Omegatron 19:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Sounds like you are into them. Well, I promise to keep my scientology additions concise and balanced, devoid of science fiction. Regards EBlack 20:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again PJacobi. You mentioned: “Galvanic skin responses are allegedly associated with the autonomous nervous system”. So it is clear that the use of the e-meter in auditing is both technically and in the minds of the general public, scientists, and scientologists, a form of neurofeedback, albeit a possibly less powerful one than your “professional” EEG mojometers:)

Also, you helpfuly state: "Despite this article being a general mess, there are applications of neurofeedback with totally mainstream disease models, e.g to train epileptics for seizure prevention." I gave this some thought and I think the article could really do with some kind of theory section. From what I have read, the theories concerning neurofeedback do vary and even conflict in areas. I may have a go at this one, but some expert input would be helpful.

To answer a prior question, the mind body link is covered to some exent in the history section. EBlack 06:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now, the defining difference between neurofeedback and other areas of biofeedback is the detection and attempted change of brain wave acticity, so autonomous nervous system wouldn't really qualify. So, you should provide some sources especially claiming the term for this area, before continuing to speculate. --Pjacobi 08:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Scientology uses EEG meters in addition to other kinds of electronic meters. Understandably, in the effort to convincingly detect traumas etc, the scientology lot will go to any lengths to measure their “presence”. They even give the neurofeedback machine makers quite a lot of business. EEG neurofeedback machines are standard at their “churches”,

Anyway, heres one link; http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/books/evans/marvels.html

Also, the dianetics literature talks about many ways to mental health

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-7545845-1694321

, and EEG feedback plays a very significant part. Out of interest, I know an ex-scientologist (he ran out of money, and reverted to Catholicism’s auditing by confessional:) He said he only used an E-meter a couple of times, the rest of the time he was plugged into the EEG to smooth out his brainwaves a bit. He said it wasn’t traumatic at all, and he reckoned it smartened him up a bit. Regards D.Right 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your first link doesn't give a connection between Scientology and EEG and your second link is broken. --Pjacobi 09:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The first link makes the association between the feedback cult, EEGs and Scientology. The second link was an collection of references to dianetics manuals which talk about EEG feedback and measurement and scientology, etc. By the way, some of the books written to expose or discredit scientology, also seem to make a good job of discrediting EEG neurofeedback. D.Right 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've read the page at the first link: It doesn't claim anywhere, that Scientology is using EEG readings. If you judge otherwise, please quote the relevant section.

It's insignifant what you claim what the second link shows, unless you can provide a working version of ot or name some ISBNs. --Pjacobi 11:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I believe the LENS or Low Energy Neurofeedback System should be included somewhere in the article. It makes use of the electromagnetic field for feedback. Cheers D.Right 09:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

One such specific source for the neurofeedback link with scientology, is the book by the guru himself; Ron Hubbard; Dianetics, the modern science of mental health. Whats more, they were the one of the first people to discover that EEGs have a tight relationship with EDAs. This is partly why they sometimes use the more portable E-meter on its own. BTW, I'm not a devotee. NRaja 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it? The E-meter doesn't measure EEG. Re "Dianetics": chapter, page reference? --Pjacobi 11:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Um! According to my old copy of Dianetics, the modern science of......Pg 315, the quote from Hubbard reads "The electroencephelograph, hypnoscopes, intelligence charts, test for various dynamics and so forth and are all mechanical aids to Dianetics". So I think you have some admitting to do. Also, according to what I have read, neurofeedback is becoming more prevalent since the death of Hubbard. I strongly suspect that you could sell one of your machines to Tom Cruise at quite a profit. Scientologists do like to mention the neurofeedback research to justify their own beliefs and practices, such as the strong association between galvanometers and EEG machines. RegardsD.Right 12:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointers. As with all pseudoscience stuff it can be included if sufficently sourced and relevant. I just freaked out at hearing the repeated claims, that the E-meter measures EEG. But heck, it's not a very exotic claim, neither when compared with Scientology's other claims nor when compared to other people's claim about neurofeedback.

And perhaps I should urge my boss to diversify, but in the moment we do only medical EEG machines, starting with 22 chns for 10k€, not this one or two channel nfb stuff.

Pjacobi 16:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Now I don't think people need to be so dictatorial about demanding ISBNs and page numbers. I have had to look up the spurious research of neurofeedback advocates myself after all.

Anyway, it is clear that scientology is inextricably entwined with neurofeedback. Not just in history philosophy and public opinion, but also in research and practice. Neurofeedback researchers use EEG and galvanic skin responses, as do scientologists. I also read that scientologists used EEG feedback for a lot of their own research, in addition to practice and calibrating E-meters. So lets not be so technically exacting about the neurofeedback page. Judging by the LENS technique, there is more to it than just neurons. And lets face it, its a lot more interesting to read with a bit of faith, controversy and scandal involved. EBlack 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's focus on getting the NPOV and cleanup tags removed, and then we can add the "interesting" stuff. - Omegatron 15:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on second viewing, the LENS procedure looks really interesting. The developer takes a very broad view of the EEG reading and looks at it like electromagnetic fields rather than nerve voltage etc. There are similar claims to efficacy. It'll probably get a mention in there sometime soon. Cheers D.Right 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks. Decided to de-lurk and admit to having been a scientologist in my misspent youth (I got sick of the outsider intolerance though). I am also an advocate of neurofeedback and I know that a lot of scientologists practice neurofeedback as a group thing as well as individually (with modern neurofeedback equipment). They also refer to neurofeedback to support their use of the e-meter. Normally an e-meter is used to detect a bit of stress, and even the language they use refers to EEGs (alphas, and thetas etc). So, yes they do consider that the use of the E-meter is neurofeedback. I really don't think there is any harm in associating neurofeedback with scientology. Just IMHO. Thaumaturge 16:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Do you want to go so far to claim, they are actually believing to measure alpha and theta brain activity with the E-meter? --Pjacobi 16:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes thanks, it is interesting. Just out of curiosity, do they try to induce "religious experience" like they have done with some recent research? Regards D.Right 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, because they use neurofeedback they are always interested in knowing when they are in theta or whatever, even when they just use the e-meter (educated guesses), and just like other practitioners like doctors etc, they will use non-scientific language like woozy instead of disoriented, or alpha instead of lucid. A lot of it is about spiritual experience also. That’s the “satisfaction” level they want you to experience after a session. But it goes way beyond the use of neurofeedback (they use lots of authority figures and whacky stories just like other religions). ATB Thaumaturge 10:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Separating pseudo-science

I think it would be more approprite to move the scientology and other clearly religiously/cult motivated claims into their own article, as this is a medical article.

Neurofeedback is a part of mainstream science, just like other biofeedback techniques, so it would make sense to make a clear distinction between the two rather than the obvious current POV painting it as all rubbish.

As it turns out, I was recently referred to a credibly PhD for biofeedback (including neurofeedback) for pain. From what I know so far, credible researchers aren't claiming it can cure anything or have any permanent effect per se. The idea is that neuro/biofeedback helps you perfect relaxation techniques, since the computer screen gives you constant feedback of how well you're doing

It's well established that the more physically stressed (as in physically tense) someone is, the worse their symptoms (for many disorders) will be, including ones that re neurological in nature--like pain in my case, or certain symtpoms of mental illness/disorders. So by perfecting the relaxation techniques, you REDUCE, but don't eliminate the severity of those symptoms. The main focus is on breathing techniques, since it's known that physical stress/tension is associated with quick, shallow breathing.

As I said though, you have to continue using those relaxation techniques the rest of your life, so it's not "permanent" in the sense that you can do the neurofeedback, just stop and your symptoms will be permanently reduced.

Really, it's not as "magical" as its made out to be. It's about slow breathing, relaxing your muscles, etc... It's what's used in Lamaze (sp?), Yoga, meditation, etc... Neuro/biofeedback is just a tool to help you perfect that relaxation, because without it you really don't have a good indication of how well you're doing.

I may pull up research on specific disorders later (e.g. epilepsy), to examine their efficacy by mainstream scientific journals. I DO know that it's widely accepted to be useful for chronic pain. The amount of help varies from person to person of course.

Nathan J. Yoder 23:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nathan. I would have to disagree with that. Wikipedia takes a neutral approach and everyone knows that. Plus, scientology's methods etc do fit the definition of neurofeedback, and due to the unfortunate inclusion of mind myths mostly attributed by the perhaps less "professional" neurotherapists, neurofeedback is extremely prone if not directly deserving of the pseudoscience category. I remain non judgmental, and I do believe neurofeedback holds some promise. However, as it stands in the world, and with neutral and balanced views, the more mystical associations must remain. The trick is to remain open and non judgmental about the words "pseudoscience", "cults" "Scientology" etc. Cheers D.Right 02:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And how is creating another article non-NPOV? I'm well aware of the policies and this doesn't violate it. It seems that you're deliberately mixing in scientology with legitimate science in an a very POV attempt to discredit the science. Scientology, as it applies to e-meters, does NOT fit the definition of neurofeedback. Neurofeedback REQUIRES attaching electrodes directly to the person's head. So far, all we have is a bunch of websites which just happen to mention 'eeg' and 'scientology' in general proximity to eachother and one confused individual saying they do that, but no real evidence backing that they do that. Not just that, but NPOV policy requires that views are represented in proportion to their prevalence, scientology's views are in the minority and yet they're heavily represented in the article, in an obvious POV pushing attempt on your part.

Your use of the label "neurotherapist" is a bit concerning, since those in the field are licensed psychiatrists, neurologists and psychologists. Your intent on lumping it in the pseudo-science category because of bad practitioners, ones with NO legitimate degree, is absurd, to say the least, since it is a well-recognized and legitimate science. That includes highly prestitigious medical institutions, but you did your research, so I'm sure you knew that already. Johns Hopkins, which does use this, is a crock of a pseudo-scientific institution, I'm sure. Lets just throw out all biofeedback with neurofeedback too, while we're at it.

You're comitting a rather atrocious logical fallacy. It's a variant of guilt by association. "Because some people misuse this tool in a pseudo-scientific manner, all people who use it must be pseudo-scientists BY ASSOCIATION." Honestly, I can't expect you to be NPOV if you can't manage to hold yourself to basic logic.

The only reason you believe neurofeedback holds no promise is because you have done no research on it, at all. Apparently you just stepped in, read this wikipedia article and thought you knew what it was. You are being extremely judgemental and quite ignorant. All you've done is read claims from a few cults/crazy people and then decided that those claims are the same as those being made by the legitimate pracitioners.

Um, I believe there is good evidence for Scientology's use of eegs and neurofeedback, not only from people's viewpoint, but also according to Hubbard's "interestingly" written texts:) (Dianetics, by Hubbard) (and his flagship of spacecadets:)Cheers H.D.

Do you have a source (one that I can read over the internet)? The sources quoted so far mention it in proximity of scientology or as a passing reference (with no sources cited), but don't really go into detail. This page seems to think that the e-meter is an eeg, and I'm guessing a lot of misconception is being spread on the same basis (that the e-meter acts as an eeg). The "e-meter" is not an eeg. I'd think that if this were a common practice it wouldn't be so hard to find a source of information on it. Nathan J. Yoder 11:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you're capable of anything except POV pushing, since you've obviously not done your research. I'm willing to bet you haven't read a single medical journal article, nor a single thing written by a legit practitioner. I offer a simple challenge to you: explain to me, without looking it up on the internet or anywhere else (meaning off the top of your head), to explain how neurofeedback is used by legitimate practitioners and what the claims behind it are made by the legitimate ones. I have this strange feeling that you're going to start googling like crazy now to save face. Nathan J. Yoder 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there, I might be missing the whole point of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this isn't supposed to be a 'democracy' - as in, we're not looking for a vote or anything. There are obviously a number of people who feel very strongly about Scientology - and it doesn't matter whether they are basing that off personal experience or something that they read on the 'web, or whatever - the point is that we can't change their views, and many people WILL discredit anything mentioned along side Scientology purely on the basis of association.

Therefore, if we acknowledge that Scientology is a contentious issue, it does make sense to DISassociate it from the article as much as possible - I mean, it ought to be mentioned, sure, but when I read through it just now, it took up a good chunk of the wiki. What is the harm in leaving it there? It gets labeled with the NPOV sticker. What is the harm in moving it to a different, though related, page - none whatsoever. Does anyone disagree? - Naranater.

Hi all. I think there will be a problem with removing scientology on the basis of pseudoscientific-ness. Neurofeedback has already been classed as pseudoscientific by a good number of reputable sources including The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (lilienfeld et al 2004), amongst websites and consumer protection bodies. They class it as sutch not because of the quacks who sell mojometers etc, but because it's efficacy does not recieve sufficient scientific support. Of course scientology and dianetics are also in those books. Cheers. H.D.

I looked up those books on Amazon, one of them has no reviews and the other has only 3. I'd assume a "highly reputable source" would be at least somewhat popular. I've never heard of these consumer protection bodies you vaguly allude to. Nathan J. Yoder 10:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article is guilty of guilt by association. A field of science or technology does not become a pseudoscience merely by drawing a crowd of unscientific enthusiasts to it. To think otherwise is to allow the unscientific enthusiasts to control scientific judgment (with a reverse sign on the effect, but still relying on their judgment).

This article should be restructured to cover several distinct topics:

1) What is neurofeedback? (EEG measurements, success/failure signaling feedback, its relationship to other areas of biofeedback) 2) What are its direct, measurable effects? (Changes in the amplitudes of brain waves in different frequency bands) 3) The rationale and state of evidence for the proposition that these observed EEG changes have various clinically significant effects (Which effects have what degree of support -- Substantial evidence? No evidence? Claim tested and rejected?) 4) References to the research literature regarding both alleged successes and failures of the method.

Then (separately, please!): 5) A discussion of the prevalence of unsubstantiated claims for efficacy among those marketing the technique. 6) A discussion of the association of neurofeedback with what are generally regarded as cult or fringe groups and their beliefs. 7) A discussion of how unsubstantiated claims and guilt by association have discredited neurofeedback as a field and have muddied the waters regarding its efficacy.

At present, bizarrely, topic (6) intrudes almost everywhere. Scientology is mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 18, yet I had never seen Scientology mentioned in connection with neurofeedback until I saw this page. This cannot make sense as an expression of NPOV. 70.231.141.90 07:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. I believe Dianetics and Scientology definitely need a strong mention on this article. BUT, there are many other related pseudosciences that also should be mentioned. That said, there is a legitimate level of empirically verified neurofeedback that is in the literature. This definitely needs seperating somehow. Here is my suggestion (I am too bloody busy (lazy) to do anything about it, but here it is): Talk about the overview (legit, with a para about dodgy nonsense (Tom Cruise, penis enlargement, technoshamanism, and the association with other pseudos such as EFT (emotional freedom technique) NLP (Neurolinguistic programming) and other such bizarre psychobabble laden bunkum). These can also be correspondingly entered into the main body of the article. Just give the article a seperate section for the loonys. You may need to mention some of this in the background history though, but as long as you stay honest and above board, everything will be cool. If you list all the successes neurofeedback has had clearly using citations, and mention them briefly and clearly in openings and summaries, the evidence will speak for itself also. No need to guild the lilly. Cheers HeadleyDown 11:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify; Instead of "Controvercy" you could call it "dubious pseudoscientific associations or "riding on the coattails of neuroscience" and exclusively mention the wierdo subjects like "well, Dianetics uses neurofeedback but they claim it will take you to planet Zog, and Tom Cruize is really into it" and "Cheap and nasty pseudo neurofeedback equipment is sometimes sold with dodgy NLP pseudoscientific claims chucked in, and some charlatan therapists use it also". There is abundant literature to show this pseudo stuff is for gullible idiots and people so sick they don't even care to read the label. Just browse the related wikipages and you will find it all with citations. Regards HeadleyDown 11:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurofeedback

To the author: Your neurofeedback article started off well, however, you veered off toward emphasizing proceedures associated with Scientology. I hafve never seen any such relationships cited previously and would like to know more details about what they are. It appeared as if you read the Introduction to Quantitative EEG and Neurofeedback book and correctly summarized some of the positive research findings discussed in that text. Thereafter, however, it was as if you had some predetermined notions that neurofeedback is an untested and unproven treatment method and set about to discredit it by techniques such as guilt-by-association with Scientology and with other approaches more often considered "pseudoscientific". Actually, if you had consulted web sites such as that of ISNR you would have found that there are many serious well-respected, highly trained and well credentialed practitioners and researchers who are trying seriously to maintain high standards and conduct research to provide scientific support for neurofeedback. I know from personal experience that this can be a very powerful therapeutic technique for a wide range of disorders. Although sometimes criticized because of claims of success with so many disorders, when one considers that neural function is electro-chemical in nature and chemical imbalances commonly are believed to be the source of a wide variety of disorders (and treatable via medication), why should it be so surprising that electrical frequency imbalances should also could be the source of many disorders (and treatable through neurofeedback)? While I agree that there are some poorly trained persons practicing neurofeedback in an unethical manner and some equipment manufacturers making unproven (perhaps even exhorbitant) claims I believe that the majority of practitioners not only are ethical but are getting a great many positive results. While the field is growing rapidly articles such as yours may impede its growth and I wish it had been more carefully thought out.

NPOV information and related ArbCom case elsewhere

In case it might be relevant to any editor of this article, the following factual information is presented:

1. Users HeadleyDown, and certain previous editors such as D.Right and some of their editing associates have had an ArbCom case accepted against them for virulent POV warfare elsewhere on Wikipedia.
2. The nature of their POV warfare has been to try and link the subject to scientology, or assert that the two are similar. Words like "pseudoscience" are used, as well as words implying a POV such as "claims".
3. In doing so they have misquoted citations, ignored talk page evidence and views presented, repeatedly reverted back the same POV material, and breached WP:NPOV and other key policies repeatedly on that article.
4. Several of the editors involved seem to be associated with editing on neurofeedback, a subject I have no familiarity with whatsoever. As I untangle their POV warfare, I find they also appear to have been nearly identical complaints by other users of POV warfaring on this and perhaps other articles too. (examples: [3], [4])
5. Should anyone wish to be kept informed of the ArbCom case, or feel that conduct of HeadleyDown, or previous editors such as D.Right, and EBlack or other editors on this article, has been in significant breach of policy during the last few months and should be added as evidence to the same ArbCom case, then evidence or comments are accepted (but not solicited) at: RFArb/Neuro-linguistic_programming.

This is not a request for POV warfare or argument. It is simply an observation that 1/ the activities of these editors on this article may be evidence of POV warfare and germane to the ArbCom case being presented on another article, and 2/ Their conduct elsewhere may be relevant in some ways (in view of the protests of non-neutrality on this talk page) to editors here. Thank you.
FT2 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the above slur by FT2: The suggestion to seperate issues on this neurofeedback article was motivated by my research into pseudoscientific subjects. On my travels I discovered that legitimate neurofeedback is not pseudoscientific in principle theory or in practice, and it is empirically supported to quite a respectable degree.

To avoid the kind of conflicts that occurred on the NLP page, I suggest that the pseudoscientific aspects (or vague associations) of neurofeedback should be contained in their own section and kept brief. This will allow any pseudoscientist such as FT2 to do their editing without treading on anyone elses toes.

This arrangement has worked out well on the NLP article, where NLP promoters can do their promotion (such as FT2 who actually stated that NLP is "really powerful" and you can give people orgasms just by speaking NLP to people). It allows the critics to have their own section also. The NLP article was inundated by "certified" NLP promoters who have been deleting any criticisms they can for the past months sometimes over 10 times a day, and accusing any neutrally minded editor who does not promote NLP, of being a sockpuppet. The arbcom situation is simply the NLP promoters not even wanting mediators to mediate because they are not NLP promotional enough.

Neurofeedback has earned the right to be considered part of science (even in its own small way) and can be considered a reasonable therapy for its own specific purposes. If these facts are given primacy, then the pseudoscientific charlatans such as Dianetics, Scientology, NLP, past lives therapy, and so on can be placed in their own section, and just as on the NLP article, conflicts will be reduced. Neurofeedback has a strange history and associations, and it will always have those. However, as the most positive thing about neurofeedback is its largely scientific support, that should be emphasized and seperated from the dross. By explicitly stating that several pseudoscientific associations are in existence, the main positive thrust of modern neurofeedback can be made clear and seperated for the benefit of learners and consumers alike. Regards HeadleyDown 11:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Brainwave Biofeedback

Is there general agreement that "Neurofeedback" and "EEG or brainwave biofeedback" are synonymous? Or are there folks who define the term more broadly to encompass any form of biofeedback involving the nervous system? If the latter is the case, then perhaps these terms need to be disambiguated.

The basic concept of biofeedback is that it is often possible for people to learn to become aware of and to gain some degree of voluntary control over physiological processes that were previously outside their awareness. To do biofeedback training for a physiological measure (such as EEG) it is necessary to measure the physiological signal and to present the results of that measurement to the person being measured.

EEG biofeedback requires an instrument which measures EEG signals. GSR biofeedback requires an instrument which measures GSR. And so forth.

After successful biofeedback training, people are able to report more accurately whether a particular physiological state is present, in the absence of feedback. In other words, biofeedback training teaches a skill.

There is a wealth of peer reviewed literature establishing that biofeedback training "works" in the sense that it can teach people increased physiological awareness and self-control for the specific physiological process that was monitored and trained.

Controversy begins when claims are made for the medical, spiritual and/or psychological benefits of learning some degree of physiological self-control.

Another controversy arises when it is alleged that training one physiological measure (such as GSR) results in control over an entirely different physiological measure (such as EEG). This amounts to an assertion that there is a strong correlation between these physiological measures.

A third area of controversy arises from various training programs which do not employ biofeedback instruments, and which claim that their training produces specific physiological states (e.g., "the alpha state").

A fourth source of confusion comes from the use of devices which do not measure physiology, but rather attempt to modify physiological events by applying external stimuli such as flashing lights, rhythmic sounds or even applying electrical stimulation to the scalp. These should not be confused with biofeedback training. TimScully 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• These terms are synonymous, they are only potentially differentiated by the mechanism of training. The end results are approximately the same however. Semiconscious 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Should neurofeedback be considered a proper subset of EEG biofeedback? If so, it'd be good to label the page that way and to explain the distinction from other forms of EEG biofeedback. There are many variations on this theme, e.g., single vs multi channel feedback, various methods of analyzing EEG signals and different sets of features that are extracted for feedback purposes (e.g., frequency bands, inter-channel phase relationships, etc.). In any case, it'd be good to distinguish all forms of EEG feedback from other modalities such as GSR. TimScully 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. Efforts towards disambiguation and distinction of issues is extremely important in an article such as this. As you know, neurofeedback is plagued by whole covens of fruitcakes, self help gurus, and pseudoscientific spiritual technologists who are determined to ride on its coattails for fraudulent profit. In order for this article to be clear, the pseudos MUST be mentioned and mentioned clearly and factually. But legitimate neurofeedback must be seperated from that and given primacy in the article. NPOV policy states that science gets priority over pseudoscience. Thus, the worthy achievements of NFBack must be presented, as long as they are clearly the scientifically supported ones in theory, practice, and from an academic publication perspective (the perspective of critical science). Lovely old critical/skeptical science has acknowledged that legitimate neurofeedback has earned the right to be regarded as valid for its specific purposes. I know little about neurofeedback specifics. But editors here should make it clear exactly which parts are legitimate, and which are the charlatanry and bunkum of new age fruitcakes. Scientific critics of NLP/EFT/TFT/primal scream therapy can also be mentioned in the context of science, and in the context of the most recent scientific findings. Prior critics of neurofeedback can also be mentioned in the context of the more recent findings of science (that generally say neurofeedback is looking rather valid). You work on clarifying the good work of neurofeedback research, and I will go around wikipedia clarifying exactly who are the pseudoscientists and exactly how fraudulent they are:) Together we will make a good team. Any pseudoscience flakes who want to edit or promote on your article can be relegated to the pseudoscience section/cage. Clarity and distinction will be helpful to all. Regards HeadleyDown 08:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

General Changes and Readability

The first section of this article strikes me as somewhat dense and difficult to penetrate: the "history and application" section kind of meanders and perhaps would benefit from being broken up somehow.

I see that there has been a massive debate about Scientology already: I moved the Scientology stuff to its own section and pared it down to two paragraphs (which to me seems appropriate); perhaps the person who put all those Scientologist works in the reference section could insert line references to indicate which books actually sourced this article, and where.

I also took out several of the links regarding psychic powers & etc. Some of them were broken, and others were simply mass-link pages where neurofeedback links were mixed in with paranormal ones: this did not seem encyclopedic. I also removed several footnote markers which did not lead to footnotes, and Harvard-style references to a person named Sala who was not listed in the reference work section.

There is quite a bit more to say about the scientific applications of neurofeedback: if any of you have access to academic databases or libraries you can look up this August's Journal of Adult Development, which is exclusively about neurofeedback: particularly interesting are the articles about the use of neurofeedback to treat anxiety, depression, and addictive disorders. In May 2005's issue of Cognitive Brain Research there's a study about the effects of neurofeedback on personality and mood: I can't access it, so maybe one of you with a snazzier database can see if it has anything which might be worth including.

It would be nice if we could equalize the tone throughout this article.Katsam 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions Katsam. The Sala ref is good, and refers to the pseudoscience of dodgy neurofeedback. And your suggestion to seperate things is fine. Its always best to keep the good criticisms in, so that future conflicts are reduced. Just put them in their proper place and all will be win win. Looks better already. Regards HeadleyDown 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If it was you who put the Sala citations in, maybe you could name the Sala text you've cited in the Reference section? Otherwise it's an orphaned citation. In reverse, if someone didn't actually reference all four (?) Scientology texts that are in the reference section, I would like to just leave in one, Dianetics, which I see was referenced on the talk page. As far as the "history and application" section goes, I think maybe it would read easier if it were broken into "history" and "application": I might try to do that later this week. Finally, I wish there were graphics on this page: too much unbroken text!Katsam 11:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katsam. The Sala citation really is not so important. It will be very useful for you though if you are interested in clarifying dodgy pseudoscience, so have a good read. Its a great book for pointing the finger at pseudoscience. It shows how the charlatans have hijacked all and sundry developing sciences, and indicates some common mind myths. From what I have read in other good literature, legitimate neurofeedback has achieved enough credibility to be called science and that should be clarified and even celebrated. But it should also be clear in the article that there are some potentially damaging claims that some of the more dubious snakeoil salesidiots make about neurofeedback. If it is kept open and clear, then any promotion of dubious products here can be deleted or consigned to the stocks (the "pseudoscientific charlatanry" section). ATB HeadleyDown 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the information about Scientology from this page. It conveyed no useful information and actually said Scientology employs a different technology in its auditing. I have no specific issue with scientology, but there is no place for for religion on this page.

If anybody has good quality referenced information about the role of Neurofeedback in Scientology, I suggest they create a new article and link from this page. --218.101.22.223 13:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)