Talk:Neurofeedback/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazi training

After reading about Neurofeedback and the ability of it being able to be applied remotely, without the consent of an individual, i.e. MYSELF I am sickened to be experiencing the 'training' that belongs in the Nazi era. It seems to be pervasive and developmental, like the very disorders it is supposed to be 'healing'. Strict regulation should be in place. Personally after experiencing the hell of having it applied to me from around 2003 to date (15/5/2006) WITHOUT my consent I would happily see it banned. I can see the potential useful applications neurofeedback/biofeedback has but this is outweighed (BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE - WITHOUT CONSENT 24 HOURS/7 DAYS PER WEEK) by the potential and real damaging effects that neurofeedback/biofeedback has.

Simon Gregory Alan Morgan. (DOB 13/09/1973) Australia.

neurofeedback

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO APPLY NEUROFEEDBACK REMOTELY. Neurofeedback is something that the patient must be actively and consciosly engaged in, It is some thing you do to yourself and not something that can be done to you. What it does, is it allows you to monitor and enhance certain brainwaves and get rid of others so that you can LEARN how to help yourself.

Initial comments

I reckon if this article could be cleaned up it would make for a very interesting read. Dessydes 14:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The current opening statement "Neurofeedback (NFB), also called neurotherapy, neurobiofeedback or EEG biofeedback, enables an individual to train brainwave activity, as measured by electrodes on the scalp, via feedback of EEG information in the form of a video display, sound or vibration" is too strong in stating that training IS occuring with neurofeedback. A more neutral point of view would state the procedure and indicate what practitioners believe they are doing and what research has been able to support about that belief.


I disagree with the above statement. Saying that NFB enables the "user" to [achieve effect] is, I'd say, coloquially synonymous with "provides the user the appropriate toolset for modification/attainment of [effect]." I believe this article to be written as neutrally as possible. Any more basic/PC would simply degrade the existant, and highly relevant, information. Quickfastgoninja 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The research indicated later in the article describes how training IS occuring.

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

  • Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, FT2, so you're not an NLP fan at all then, heh? I noticed HeadleyDown knows the difference between pseudoscience and science. He certainly put your little NLP hobby in its place. No wonder all your effigy burning! NLP really is a cult after all! SparksMc 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag. NPOV or not, it's changed and improved in the time since may 2005. -- ∞Wirelain 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wirelain. I have lots of good stuff on neurofeedback. I can add some good verifiable stuff and will tidy as I go. SparksMc 07:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Oh btw, its all positive and shows neurofeedback to be a legitimate scientifically adherent research stream. Its a shame NLP fanatics and Scientologists have screwed it up for so long. Still, the stuff I have will show the difference. SparksMc 07:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Comment on Improvements to Neurofeedback Article

I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive my current ignorance about how to post a comment appropriately with identifying tags, etc. I just want to say how HUGE an improvement the current version of the Neurofeedback article is-- over what was here a year ago! As an alternative medicine practitioner--and practicing as a licensed psychologist in California--the prior set of rants and raves was quite terrible to behold. The current article can easily be edited and added to and it is, above all, informative. I assume the Wikipedia editorial group must have done some work to rescue this article from its prior lamentable state, so, many thanks.

--Gregalter 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Article heading towards a more scientific and factual footing

I wonder if this article would benefit from adding the work being done in neuroscience/neurology (see brain-computer interface page) as well as the psychological studies already detailed here? It sounds like the former direction of the article was to look at neurofeedback as an alternative theory. It's also being used to assist paralysed patients move computer cursors (and even limbs) by thought. So perhaps the core of the article is to describe the science behind it and then the applications. I think there is even talk of releasing computer games that use neurofeedback and there are sourceforge projects seeking to design an open-source EEG.

I also agree with the user that suggested merging this page with the EEG Biofeedback page. Big overlaps. --Saganaki- 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

This poor beleaguered page. Why is its neutrality disputed right now? Katsam 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, maybe because it is the WORST REFERENCED ARTICLE in all of Wikipedia??? This entire article is pure unreferenced extreme POV rubbish. I wish I wasn't studying and working full time right now I could fix an article as biased and destructive as this one - manipulating people into believing that electrodes on your head can cure diseases and disorders. It's good that the article records the Ohio court finding that EGG is completely useless - this should be right up top of the page though.--60.242.49.64 11:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

The "history" section is garbled and needs more footnoting. The "art" section reads sort of like product placement. And the whole article could use reorganizing (possibly in the direction of the brain-computer interface stuff discussed above). Katsam 08:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • For my part: large sections seem piled on top of eachother making it hard to read, most of the claims have no supporting references (although they refer to specific researchers so refs should be findable), big bits of the intro read like people sniping at eachother, and a few parts of of it seem to be speculation on the topic.137.195.68.169 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does this differ from biofeedback?

Not that i believe biofeedback belongs in the "alternative medicin" realm, but the two fields are close enough and based on the same major principle. So how one got to be called "medicinal" and the other "alternative"? Hush wtf (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback. Biofeedback refers to any process that provides feedback to the conscious awareness on a biological function that is usually not part of conscious awareness (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate variability, skin temperature, etc). Neurofeedback provides feedback on electromagnetic brain waves emanating from the scalp. These brain waves have long been studied in sleep studies (e.g. delta,theta,alpha, beta. Despite the seeming controversy here, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that neurofeedback improves a wide range of conditions that are impacted and / or regulated by the brain. The true controversy lies in the theory of efficacy: exactly what is happening that causes the improvement? There are several competing theories. None are fully satisfactory in their explanations. I agree that both entrees should be in the same category. In my opinion, they are not alternative in that they both have decades of respectable research behind them. They help people, we are just not completely clear on the mechanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.195.252 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neurofeedback/Archive_2&oldid=923207582"