Effects of Biofeedback in Phonatory Disorders and Phonatory Performance: A Systematic Literature Review

The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature on the effects of biofeedback therapy in the domain of phonatory disorders and phonatory performance, using studies in peer-reviewed journals. An extensive definition of biofeedback is given and its place in voice treatment is defined. Eighteen group or case studies or reports considering the effects of electromyographic, laryngoscopic and acoustic biofeedback in dysphonic patients (hyperfunctional voice disorders, hypofunctional voice disorders, psychogenic voice disorder, laryngeal trauma, total laryngectomy, vocal cord dysfunction) and participants with normal voices are included and an analysis of procedure as well as research design and results is presented. The usefulness of biofeedback in phonatory disorders and performance was to be interpreted based on tendencies, since there is a lack of randomized controlled efficacy studies. In only 3 of 18 studies (16.7%) did biofeedback therapy fail to improve voice quality or not result in better results than other forms of therapy. Recommendations for improved methodologies are made, which include the use of acoustic voice quality parameters.     

Biofeedback of Heart Rate Variability and Related Physiology: A Critical Review

Low heart rate variability (HRV) characterizes several medical and psychological diseases. HRV biofeedback is a newly developed approach that may have some use for treating the array of disorders in which HRV is relatively low. This review critically appraises evidence for the effectiveness of HRV and related biofeedback across 14 studies in improving (1) HRV and baroreflex outcomes and (2) clinical outcomes. Results revealed that HRV biofeedback consistently effectuates acute improvements during biofeedback practice, whereas the presence of short-term and long-term carry-over effects is less clear. Some evidence suggests HRV biofeedback may result in long-term carry-over effects on baroreflex gain, which is an area most promising for future investigations. On the other hand, concerning clinical outcomes, there is ample evidence attesting to efficacy of HRV biofeedback. However, because clinical and physiological outcomes do not improve concurrently in all cases, the mechanism by which HRV biofeedback results in salutary effects in unclear. Considerations for the field in addressing shortcomings of the reviewed studies and advancing understanding of the way in which HRV biofeedback may improve physiological and clinical outcomes are offered in light of the reviewed evidence.     

Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training

In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models----correct research design----correct results----correct conclusions----advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations----faulty models----faulty research design----faulty results----faulty conclusions----confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of "biofeedback" as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, "Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective," we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of "biofeedback" and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is "biofeedback" with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind design that distinguish "specific" from "placebo effects," and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information--usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.     

Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training

In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models → correct research design → correct results → correct conclusions → advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations → faulty models → faulty research design → faulty results → faulty conclusions → confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of “biofeedback” as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, “Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective,” we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of “biofeedback” and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is “biofeedback” with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind designs that distinguish “specific” from “placebo effects,” and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information — usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.     

An alternative perspective on biofeedback efficacy studies: a reply to Steiner and Dince

Clinical applications of biofeedback have proliferated and considerable lore surrounding the application of these techniques has evolved. Many assertions about the effectiveness of biofeedback training are based on findings of the least well-controlled studies, while many of the better controlled studies have failed to show that biofeedback directly mediates target symptoms or is superior to other treatments. Steiner and Dince (1981) suggest that the failure of these controlled studies is primarily attributable to methodological deficiencies. We believe that the question of whether or not there is a specific effect of biofeedback training is still frequently confused with the question of whether or not the treatment package as a whole has therapeutic value. Biofeedback is often therapeutic; however, evidence is often lacking that its effectiveness is due to biofeedback-trained changes in a target physiological process.     

Common Factors in Biofeedback Administered by Psychotherapists

Common factors are nonspecific therapeutic elements common across different varieties of psychotherapy. In a recent study, 68 expert psychotherapy researchers with a variety of allegiances collectively rated biofeedback as being negatively associated with many common factors (Tschacher et al. in Clin Psychol Psychother 21(1):82–96, 2014), including the therapeutic alliance. However, it seems implausible that biofeedback could benefit so many people while being incompatible with the therapeutic alliance and other common factors. The present study investigated the experiences of biofeedback clients who participated in a brief heart rate variability biofeedback protocol in order to explore the potential roles of common factors in biofeedback. The results of this study offer preliminary evidence that many common factors—including therapeutic alliance, self-efficacy expectation, mastery experiences, provision of explanatory scheme, mindfulness, and even cognitive restructuring—may play a role in biofeedback outcomes. Future research on this topic should include mediation and moderation models investigating the role of specific common factors on outcome and process studies to help determine what clinician behaviors are most helpful. Deeper investigation of common factors in biofeedback may benefit future biofeedback research and practice and address the concerns of colleagues outside of the biofeedback community who believe that biofeedback is at odds with common factors.

     

Pelvic Floor Muscle Biofeedback in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence: A Literature Review

Biofeedback is efficacious in the training of the pelvic floor musculature in order to enhance continence. This article reviews the anatomy and physiology of micturition as the underlying rationale for pelvic floor muscle biofeedback in the treatment of urinary incontinence. It critically reviews 28 studies published in peer reviewed journals from 1975 to 2005 that were prospective, randomized studies with parametric statistical analyses, operationally defined patient selection criteria, treatment protocols and outcome measures. The overall mean treatment improvement for patients undergoing biofeedback for urinary incontinence was 72.61%. In 21 of 35 (60%) paired comparisons, biofeedback demonstrated superior symptomatic outcome to control or alternate treatment groups. Larger studies and a standardization of technology and methodology are required for more conclusive determinations.     

Controlled group designs in biofeedback research: Ask, “what does the control group control for?”

The extant literature on the specific role of biofeedback in promoting skeletal muscular relaxation is reviewed and found deficient with respect to the use of properly controlled group outcome research. The review emphasizes the failure of commonly used control procedures to adequately control a number of potentially confounding variables. Strengths and weaknesses of three types of controlled group design (attention placebo, pseudofeedback, and altered contingency) are discussed with respect to their relative usefulness in controlling certain nonspecific or placebo effects in biofeedback research. Many published biofeedback studies failed to measure the credibility of control procedures or the subject's ability to discriminate different feedback contingencies. The studies reviewed suggest that the various control procedures used are not inert and are not equivalent with respect to their effects on control group behavior. The suggestion is made that the controlled group outcome design be accepted as the minimum requirement for testing the specific effects of biofeedback, and possible methods for improving control procedures are discussed.     

Heart-rate reactivity to cold pressor stress following biofeedback training

Three previous studies have shown that biofeedback training is useful in modifying heart-rate and pain ratings during ice water stimulation (cold pressor test). Subjects were given an initial cold pressor followed by heart-rate biofeedback training and a final cold pressor test in which they were instructed to control their heart rate in accordance with the prior training. It was assumed that a heart-rate control skill had been learned. In the present study, two groups of subjects (N = 9 each) were given either increase or decrease heart-rate biofeedback training following the same procedures as previously, but subjects were not instructed to control their heart rate during the final cold pressor test. Heart rate, skin conductance, electromyographic activity, and respiration were measured. The biofeedback training effects replicate the previous results. However, no heart-rate or pain rating differences were found between the two groups during the final cold pressor test. Thus, previous findings cannot be accounted for simply by a shift in heart rate and/or pain reactivity following training itself. The findings suggest that a biofeedback strategy may be useful in modifying physiological and subjective responses to painful stimuli but only if it can be used as an active coping skill.     

Cost effectiveness of biofeedback and behavioral medicine treatments: a review of the literature

This paper reviews multicomponent behavioral medicine studies that contain cost-effectiveness and or cost-benefit data relevant to the field of biofeedback and relaxation training, primarily when assisted by biofeedback, with or without stress management, in the treatment of psychosomatic illness and pain. A model for evaluating biofeedback treatment is presented. Cost-effectiveness data concerning reduction in physician visits and/or medication use, decrease in medical care costs to patients, reduction in hospital stays and rehospitalization, reduction of mortality, and enhanced quality of life are reviewed. Evidence suggests that multicomponent behavioral medicine treatments are cost-effective on all dimensions reviewed. Cost/benefit ratios range between 1:2 and 1:5, with a median of 1:4. Evidence that could increase the cost effectiveness of biofeedback is reviewed.     

Systematic Review of Biofeedback Interventions for Addressing Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents with Long-Term Physical Conditions

Children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions are at increased risk of psychological problems, particularly anxiety and depression, and they have limited access to evidence-based treatment for these issues. Biofeedback interventions may be useful for treating symptoms of both psychological and physical conditions. A systematic review of studies of biofeedback interventions that addressed anxiety or depression in this population was undertaken via MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Primary outcomes included changes in anxiety and depression symptoms and ‘caseness’. Secondary outcomes included changes in symptoms of the associated physical condition and acceptability of the biofeedback intervention. Of 1876 identified citations, 9 studies (4 RCTs, 5 non-RCTs; of which all measured changes in anxiety and 3 of which measured changes in depression) were included in the final analysis and involved participants aged 8–25 years with a range of long-term physical conditions. Due to the heterogeneity of study design and reporting, risk of bias was judged as unclear for all studies and meta-analysis of findings was not undertaken. Within the identified sample, multiple modalities of biofeedback including heart rate variability (HRV), biofeedback assisted relaxation therapy and electroencephalography were found to be effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety. HRV was also found to be effective in reducing symptoms of depression in two studies. A range of modalities was effective in improving symptoms of long-term physical conditions. Two studies that assessed acceptability provided generally positive feedback. There is currently limited evidence to support the use of biofeedback interventions for addressing anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. Although promising, further research using more stringent methodology and reporting is required before biofeedback interventions can be recommended for clinical use instead or in addition to existing evidence-based modalities of treatment.     

Yawning: a possible confounding variable in EMG biofeedback studies

An elderly hemiplegic patient participating in an EMG biofeedback training program was observed to produce a synergistic flexion movement of the plegic (determined by functional evaluations) upper limb while yawning. In the course of the training sessions the electrical activity of the anterior deltoid (the target muscle) was recorded during yawning. These peak EMG values were greatly facilitated in comparison with the session mean peak values obtained during an attempted maximum voluntary isometric contraction (shoulder flexion) of the same limb (e.g., Trial 1: 85.00 vs. 4.33 microV). The possibility of yawning as a confounding variable in EMG biofeedback studies is presented and discussed.     

Biofeedback and the placebo effect

This article reviews the role of positive expectations, including those engendered by placebos, in symptom relief following medical and surgical procedures, and psychotherapy. Viewing biofeedback as instrument-aided psychotherapy, its procedures are considered in the light of their ability to mobilize the same healing forces as all forms of psychotherapy, with some implications for promising directions of biofeedback research.Slightly modified from an invited address to the Biofeedback Society on March 15, 1981 in Louisville, Kentucky.     

Yawning: A possible confounding variable in EMG biofeedback studies

An elderly hemiplegic patient participating in an EMG biofeedback training program was observed to produce a synergistic flexion movement of the plegic (determined by functional evaluations) upper limb while yawning. In the course of the training sessions the electrical activity of the anterior deltoid (the target muscle) was recorded during yawning. These peak EMG values were greatly facilitated in comparison with the session mean peak values obtained during an attempted maximum voluntary isometric contraction (shoulder flexion) of the same limb (e.g., Trial 1: 85.00 vs. 4.33 µV). The possibility of yawning as a confounding variable in EMG biofeedback studies is presented and discussed.This research was supported in part by Health and Welfare Canada (NHRDP).     

Cost effectiveness of biofeedback and behavioral medicine treatments: A review of the literature

This paper reviews multicomponent behavioral medicine studies that contain cost-effectiveness andor cost-benefit data relevant to the field of biofeedback and relaxation training, primarily when assisted by biofeedback, with or without stress management, in the treatment of psychosomatic illness and pain. A model for evaluating biofeedback treatment is presented. Cost-effectiveness data concerning reduction in physician visits and/or medication use, decrease in medical care costs to patients, reduction in hospital stays and rehospitalization, reduction of mortality, and enhanced quality of life are reviewed. Evidence suggests that multicomponent behavioral medicine treatments are cost-effective on all dimensions reviewed. Cost/benefit ratios range between 1:2 and 1:5, with a median of 1:4. Evidence that could increase the cost effectiveness of biofeedback is reviewed.This work first appeared in a paper presented as the presidential address at the 18th annual meeting of the Biofeedback Society of America, Boston, March 15, 1987.     

Learned helplessness and the facilitation of biofeedback performance

The present article reports the results of two studies, which, taken together, support the hypothesis that learned helplessness resulting in effort cessation, while detrimental to performance on cognitive tasks, is actually facilitative to performance in a biofeedback relaxation task. Data are presented indicating that false failure feedback leads to the typically reported decrement in performance on a cognitive arithmetic task, while such feedback leads to enhanced performance in biofeedback relaxation. Self-report data suggest that this occurs because when subjects encounter failure, they revise their expectancies of future success downward and consequently plan to exert less effort. Reduction of effort is proposed as the common mechanism underlying the contrast in results between the arithmetic and biofeedback tasks. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the way in which theories of self-efficacy and learned helplessness are commonly interpreted.     

On clinical efficacy: why biofeedback does--and does not--work

Questions of clinical efficacy are becoming more prominent in this era of diminishing funds for research and clinical care, and new treatment procedures, in particular, are being rigorously scrutinized. This presents a challenge for the relatively recent field of biofeedback and applied psychophysiology. This field has a strong scientific orientation and a rapidly expanding research base, which includes many well-controlled clinical outcome studies. The point is raised, and illustrated with data from current clinical outcome studies, that it is time for a shift in emphasis away from simply piling study upon study and toward more thoughtful interpretation of experimental and clinical findings and the development of a clearer conceptual framework for biofeedback therapy and research.     

The Influence of Respiration on Biofeedback Techniques

This research is based on previous studies which identified a specific respiratory pattern and inhalation-exhalation ratio, with which we were able to obtain significantly greater reductions in psychophysiological activation than with other respiratory patterns. The present study aimed to check the effectiveness of this respiratory pattern in learning based on biofeedback from the electrical conductance of the skin. The results obtained demonstrated that biofeedback combined with this respiratory pattern produced a significant reduction in psychophysiological activation and improved learning through biofeedback techniques.     

Biofeedback techniques in the treatment of visual and ophthalmologic disorders

The literature on the use of biofeedback techniques in the treatment of visual and opthalmologic disorders is reviewed. Although this consists mainly of case studies, there is mounting evidence that biofeedback may be applicable to the treatment of strabismus, nystagmus, blepharospasm, elevated intraocular pressure, and myopia. Because of the success in applying biofeedback techniques in the treatment of other neuromuscular disorders, it is concluded that the use of these techniques in the treatment of blepharospasm and strabismus shows the most promise.