Talk:Neurofeedback/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Applications

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brainwave Biofeedback 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: General Changes and Readability