Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback training: a critical lay perspective

Recent interchanges on the question of how to evaluate biofeedback have been cast in terms of a researcher versus clinician dichotomy. This tends to make the arguments ad hominem and focuses attention on minutiae that are of limited general interest. Accordingly, one purpose of the present paper is to state the specific-effects approach to biofeedback evaluation from a critical lay, rather than a research, perspective. The logic of the specific-effects approach to treatment evaluation is first illustrated by a hypothetical example (the Minefield Parable), and it is then suggested that the approach is appropriate for the evaluation of any treatment, be it physical, psychological, or some complex combination. The other purpose of the paper is to further clarify the specific-effects position by responding to some difficulties that have been raised by critics of the position. Some of these difficulties are based on misrepresentations of the position, while others are genuine. However, even for the genuine difficulties, practical solutions are available. The paper concludes that the question of whether a particular class of treatments works is one that is properly raised by the intelligent consumer, and that, for the answer to that question, only the facts, based on adequately controlled clinical studies, will do.     

Biofeedback theory and application in allied health

The implementation of biofeedback procedures represents a new approach to clinical management of speech disorders. Thus far, results of experiments utilizing biofeedback techniques have suggested positive effects in the remediation of speech disorders. The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader with the principles of biofeedback; to survey areas of clinical application including voice, fluency, and other clinical disorders; and to explore potential applications of biofeedback procedures for the speech and language pathologist.     

Problems inherent in assessing biofeedback efficacy studies

This paper discusses some of the problems involved in drawing conclusions across studies about the efficacy of biofeedback. It focuses on biofeedback for the treatment of hypertension, but the same difficulties arise when considering the effect of biofeedback in other disorders. Large multicenter studies using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, biofeedback protocol, and methodology are badly needed if biofeedback practitioners are ever going to demonstrate the real effectiveness of biofeedback.     

Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback: Some brief back-to-basics considerations

Following the semantic complexities raised in earlier papers, this paper seeks to return to some of the more basic considerations arising from the preceding discussion. A critical part of the context of that discussion is the increasingly important issue of accountability. In this context, the citing of supportive studies is not enough, one must also be able to justify the logical relevance of those studies. The discussion therefore turns of the logic of treatment evaluation, which must be treated as objectively as possible. Also critical is the distinction between the question of whether an effect is present and the question of what the source of that question might be. In the quest for treatment evaluation, only the former question is important. However, this quest is one that is in the interest of researchers, clinicians, and consumers, for all of whom only the facts will do.The preparation of this paper was supported by grants from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada to both authors. We are indebted to Hal Scher for comments on an earlier draft.     

Nocturnal biofeedback for nocturnal bruxism

Reports have appeared recently describing the successful reduction of nocturnal bruxism through nocturnal biofeedback. These claims of effective treatments rest mainly on the use of a single index of integrated masseter EMG levels as a measure of bruxism and are based only on short-term effects. The present study was conducted to provide a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of noctural biofeedback for nocturnal bruxism through the use of all-night polysomnographic recordings. The results from multiple indices of bruxism are internally consistent and indicate that simple nocturnal biofeedback does not appear to be effective in reducing nocturnal bruxing. Recommendations are made for a more comprehensive approach to the treatment of nocturnal bruxism.     

Ethical and practice considerations for biofeedback therapists in the treatment of urinary incontinence

The treatment of incontinence presents many unique issues for biofeedback therapists that are routine for professionals in fields such as nursing or medicine. Although, all professional practice is guided by ethical standards, the unique circumstances encountered during biofeedback treatments for this disorder warrant the development of specific guidelines. This is true whether insertable or surface EMG devices are used. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a set of ethical guidelines for biofeedback therapists. The intended audience includes professionals such as psychologists, clinical psychophysiologists, and other mental health-care providers who use biofeedback techniques. These are not formally endorsed by any professional organizations (e.g., APA, AAPB) at this time. Ethical considerations include proper medical evaluation, informed consent, patient instruction, disrobing, nonerotic physical contact, patient safety, and patient satisfaction.     

脑电生物反馈系统的研制和脑电α成分反馈的研究

本文介绍了我们研制的微机化脑电反馈系统.并报告了我们所进行的正常人脑电α成分生物反馈训练实验,证明了脑电生物反馈提升α成分比例的可行性.本文还论讨了国际上现行关于脑电α成分生物反馈研究中存在的问题,提出了有效的解决方法.     

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.     

Biofeedback training: Offerings,plans, and some attitudes in graduate schools and internships

Graduate schools and APA-approved internships in North America were surveyed to determine the type and extent of biofeedback training, additional biofeedback training planned, requirements considered to be a minimum necessary before beginning clinical practice of biofeedback, when biofeedback is considered an appropriate application, and whether biofeedback is considered a passing fad in clinical practice. Questionnaires were returned by 56% of the graduate schools and 54% of the internships, and revealed training in 58% and 67% respectively. Training in biofeedback procedures appears to be growing, and most graduate schools and internships think that biofeedback is not a passing fad in clinical practice. Training emphases vary considerably across graduate schools and internships, with some schools and internships excluding theory and/or practice and/or research from their instruction. The results are discussed in relation to the question of determining which procedures to include in future instruction.     

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.     

An Eliminativist Approach to Vulnerability

The concept of vulnerability has been subject to numerous different interpretations but accounts are still beset with significant problems as to their adequacy, such as their contentious application or the lack of genuine explanatory role for the concept. The constant failure to provide a compelling conceptual analysis and satisfactory definition leaves the concept open to an eliminativist move whereby we can question whether we need the concept at all. I highlight problems with various kinds of approach and explain why a satisfactory account of vulnerability is unlikely ever to be offered if we wish the concept to play a genuinely explanatory role in bioethical contexts. I outline why an eliminativist position should be taken with regard to this concept in light of these concerns but mitigate some of the severity of this position by arguing that we can still make sense of retaining our widespread use of the term by viewing it as nothing more than a useful pragmatic linguistic device that acts as a marker to draw attention to certain kinds of issue. These issues will be entirely governed by other, better understood ethical concepts and theories.     

Popper,Laws, and the Exclusion of Biology from Genuine Science

The primary purpose of this paper is to argue that biologists should stop citing Karl Popper on what a genuinely scientific theory is. Various ways in which biologists cite Popper on this matter are surveyed, including the use of Popper to settle debates on methodology in phylogenetic systematics. It is then argued that the received view on Popper--namely, that a genuinely scientific theory is an empirically falsifiable one--is seriously mistaken, that Popper's real view was that genuinely scientific theories have the form of statements of laws of nature. It is then argued that biology arguably has no genuine laws of its own. In place of Popperian falsifiability, it is suggested that a cluster class epistemic values approach (which subsumes empirical falsifiability) is the best solution to the demarcation problem between genuine science and pseudo- or non-science.     

Biofeedback training: offerings, plans, and some attitudes in graduate schools and internships

Graduate schools and APA-approved internships in North America were surveyed to determine the type and extent of biofeedback training, additional biofeedback training planned, requirements considered to be a minimum necessary before beginning clinical practice of biofeedback, when biofeedback is considered an appropriate application, and whether biofeedback is considered a "passing fad" in clinical practice. Questionnaires were returned by 56% of the graduate schools and 54% of the internships, and revealed training in 58% and 67% respectively. Training in biofeedback procedures appears to be growing, and most graduate schools and internships think that biofeedback is not a passing fad in clinical practice. Training emphases vary considerably across graduate schools and internships, with some schools and internships excluding theory and/or practice and/or research from their instruction. The results are discussed in relation to the question of determining which procedures to include in future instruction.     

Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface

This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of 'systems biology' offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.     

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.     

Biofeedback in medicine: who,when, why and how?

Biofeedback is a mind-body technique in which individuals learn how to modify their physiology for the purpose of improving physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health. Much like physical therapy, biofeedback training requires active participation on the part of patients and often regular practice between training sessions. Clinical biofeedback may be used to manage disease symptoms as well as to improve overall health and wellness through stress management training. Research has shown that biofeedback interventions are efficacious in treating a variety of medical conditions, and many Americans are turning to biofeedback and other less traditional therapies for their routine healthcare.Clinical biofeedback training is growing increasingly popular in the USA, as many people are seeking out relatively new approaches to healthcare. This article provides an overview of clinical biofeedback training, outlines two models of training, details research which has established how effective biofeedback is in patients with a given disease, and describes who should be referred for biofeedback training.     

Presuming patient autonomy in the face of therapeutic misconception

Therapeutic misconception involves the failure of subjects either to understand or to incorporate into their own expectations the distinctions in nature and purpose of personally responsive therapeutic care, and the generic relationship between subject and investigator which is constrained by research protocols. Researchers cannot disregard this phenomenon if they are to ensure that subjects engage in research on the basis of genuine informed consent. However, our presumption of patient autonomy must be sustained unless we have compelling evidence of serious misunderstanding. This article argues that the mere expression of aspects of therapeutic misconception should not necessarily displace the presumption of subject autonomy or undermine ethical inclusion in research for at least three reasons. First, some interpretations of the empirical data do not suggest misunderstanding. Second, assessment of misestimation and optimism are delicate and value‐laden, and turn quickly from questions of autonomy to questions of judgment. Third, incomplete understanding may yet be sufficient to allow a subject to engage in a substantially autonomous decision‐making process. Our point is not to dismiss the possibility of genuine therapeutic misconception, but to question its frequency and fatality to the consent process.     

Scientific and clinical biofeedback in the USSR

This paper describes the history of biofeedback research and application in the USSR. The approach of USSR scientists to the study of basic mechanisms of biofeedback and the status of clinical applications of biofeedback in the Soviet Union are described. Trends in the publication of biofeedback-related papers in Russian are presented, and the present "state of the art" described. Promising prospects for biofeedback research and application are discussed.     

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.Preparation of this paper was supported in part by NIDRR grant No. H133G90085, Department of Education, DHEW.     

The behavioral treatment of Raynaud's disease: A review

Raynaud's disease is a peripheral vascular system disorder characterized by episodes of vasoconstriction in the hands and feet resulting in a lowering of skin temperature and pain. Recent studies are reviewed that focus on the behavioral treatment of Raynaud's disease—in particular, biofeedback and autogenic training. Methodological problems and other difficulties include the measurement of skin temperature, schedules of reinforcement/feedback, and characteristics of the experimenter and subject. Studies in this area indicate some promise for certain behavioral interventions, especially finger temperature biofeedback under cold stress conditions. On the other hand, further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms, especially that of vasodilation, and the applications of temperature biofeedback, as well as the role of attitudinal, interpersonal, and cognitive factors.