On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:36:33 -0500 (EST) Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suppose that biofeedback practitioners don't really care > whether the route is direct or indirect, only that one can > thereby gain control over gut and brain responses. But it does > seem to me that the current revival of claims for the > effectiveness of biofeedback (for epilepsy and attention-deficit > disorder, for example) are based on hype rather than on evidence. > In particular, watch out for "neurofeedback" and its grandiose > and unsupported claims. > > I worked for a semester in a biofeedback lab that was attempting to reduce epileptic seizure activity through EEG biofeedback training. I encountered an important issue that people need to be aware of when considering work in this area. People who serve as subjects in this area are those whose seizure activity cannot be controlled easily by medication. That is why a MD will turn over a medical problem to psychologist researchers. But that does not mean they are not on medication. Au contraire, most of these people were heavily medicated and very drowsy. It was very difficult just to keep subjects from falling into a stupor during sessions, much less producing a specific change in EEG spectra. Genuine improvement would be very impressive given the practical problems facing researchers. Ken ---------------------- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
