Talk:Biofeedback

message: Considering that Barbara Brown is/was a major figure in biofeedback and there is a Wikipedia entry for her, how the heck did you people miss this??  The entry is at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brown_%28scientist%29
Let me quote part of it here:  "Brown was the biofeedback field's most prolific writer and most successful popularizer. ... Dr. Brown created and popularized the word 'biofeedback.'  She did her ground-breaking research when she was Chief of Experiential Physiology Research at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Sepulveda, California. ... Brown was co-founder and first president (1969-1970) of the Biofeedback Research Society, which evolved into the Biofeedback Society of America and then into the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback."
This entry and the timeline included in it specifically mention the Biofeedback Research Society (BRS) but somehow fail to mention that Brown was co-founder of it.  There's no good reason for that.  Clearly, she was a well known figure in psychology and psychopharmacology and a major figure within the biofeedback profession.  Moreover, she published half a dozen popular books on the subject in addition to two books for professional practitioners, The Biofeedback Syllabus: A Handbook for the Psychophysiologic Study of Biofeedback (1975) and The Alpha Syllabus: A handbook of human EEG alpha activity (1974).  Failure to mention her here is inexcusable!  This Wikipedia entry must be fixed immediately so that Brown is included prominently within the text. Mrtraska (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How did anyone manage to edit this article about biofeedback and skip mentioning Barbara B. Brown???  Come on, now!

message: I would like the Task Force on Nomenclature's definition restored in place of a contributor's personal definition that was sourced from an Abnormal Psychology text. The official websites of the three main international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations, AAPB, BCIA, and ISNR have published this consensus definition that their Boards approved. —Fredricshaffer (via posting script) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this seems like overkill (on top of being malformed, I don't think your signature is supposed to show up).  I don't mind the TFN's definition being used, if it can be properly sourced.  However, what's wrong with the Abnormal Psych text, considering it is one of the sources recommended in Wikipedia:MEDRS#Books?  In particular, the google books link allows the reader to verify the intformation themselves.  Is there anything important missing from the abnormal psych definition?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this resolved? If not please give links to the different definitions. MiRroar (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Task Force Definition of Biofeedback

message: Since WLU was concerned about citing works in press, I referenced the Task Force on Nomenclature's definition to the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) official website. Their publication of this definition makes it part of the public record. The BCIA and ISNR websites published the same definition that their Boards also approved. For the first time, the three major international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations jointly defined the term biofeedback to defend against the commercial misuse of the term. 
Since the definition is part of the public record and the product of experts in the field, I would welcome editors who disagree with this definition to leave it in place and start a "Criticisms of the Task Force on Nomenclature's Definition" underneath.Fredricshaffer (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be a direct quote, so I'll summarize it, but I'll summarize it, add in a citation template and format the lead.  The lead needs to be greatly expanded by the way - it should summarize all the main points of the article, not just a definition and some effectiveness stuff.  I'd rather the source be somewhere other than the AAPB frontpage, but it'll work until a better one becomes available.  Please feel free to modify any wording changes I make to the definition if I miss anything major, but we shouldn't be using direct quotes if possible.  Please also refer to the links and guidelines I cite in my edit summaries and on the talk page - I'm not making idle changes, we have a guide to layout, a maual of style and a variety of citation tools that'll make the page both more professional looking and make it easier for readers to verify or research the text itself.   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An Effort At Compromise

message: I'm pleased with the revisions and value collaborative solutions.Fredricshaffer (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise Achieved

message: I reverted vandalism in the Research section written by an anonymous editor who does not have a talk page.Fredricshaffer (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This article talks about skin conductance and skin resistance as though they are different things.  Conductance is just the reciprocal of resistance. 151.200.47.86 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance vs. Conductance 

message: the criticism section is just selling biofeedback as a medical tool and reads like a pro biofeedback pamphlet encouraging people to "educate" healthcare professionals, lets try to keep it NPOV 114.76.41.165 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Is there any reason why the first image on this article is in Polish? It seems rather odd and out of place, is there not another suitable image that could be used? --Winwardo (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this concern.  This is the english language wikipedia; the image should be replaced. Tom (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article picture 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Majormodalities.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I totally agree with Lesion. That doesn't make any sense, otherwise you'd want to give pages to all aspects of technique and equipment, and the headbands are a minor aspect of it all...   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenru (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Just as it is standard to have a Wikipedia article for each distinct car model, it makes sense to have distinct articles for each piece of medical equipment.  Lumping the biofeedback headband into the general biofeedback article would be like lumping the Lunar Rover article into a general article on cars.  The biofeedback headband is distinct in many ways from all other biofeedback equipment.  It would be useful to make the distinctions more clear in this article. RagingDog (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, the real reason that it was a separate article is so there was a "quiet corner" for advertising and non neutral point of view content. Having encyclopedic separate articles is easier said than done. It is an issue of finding appropriate sources. Technically we should be using only evidence that specifically discusses the headband instead of other types of biofeedback (I think this is called "tabletop biofeedback" in the article) for a separate headband page. Consider that we can't use primary sources, and systematic reviews will tend to lump the headband in with other types of biofeedback. Most of the sources I added shouldn't be there for this reason. Furthermore, by having separate articles, we are suggesting that the biofeedback headband is possibly has different effects than other types of biofeedback, and we definitely should not do that without a source. Lesion (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved following comment from (talk:Biofeedback headband) Lesion (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the references discuss biofeedback generally, and I am not sure if this was with a headband or some other type of biofeedback. I honestly think that this whole content could be better presented as a subsection of the main biofeedback page. Lesion (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

text: If by your statement "Most of the references discuss biofeedback generally", you are meaning to assert that most of the references *only* discuss biofeedback generally, I don't believe that to be correct.  It is standard practice to list the equipment used in a study.  If you are reading a literature review, you may have to go back to the original article being referenced.  That is easy to do.  There have been only two brands of biofeedback headbands produced(The BruxCare/GrindAlert (the original American rand which was later renamed SleepGuard) and GrindCare (manufactured in the Netherlands)).  Both devices were designed to provide biofeedback signals that could be responded to in sleep, rather than a signal that would wake a person up.  As far as I know, the American biofeedback headband was the first biofeedback device specifically designed to e responded to without waking up.  The other unit followed suit about five years later. RagingDog (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The references we are currently using (meta analyses and systematic reviews) for biofeedback headband make conclusions about biofeedback generally. Whilst it is common practice for studies presenting new evidence to draw a distinction in the type of biofeedback they are using, these are primary sources and we can't use them on Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS). Lesion (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Support merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll merge these tomorrow. Lesion (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Biofeedback headband]] 

message: Although this article is generally well sourced, one section has five paragraphs that are not sourced, so I placed the more footnotes tag on that section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More footnotes tag 

message: Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback, where a discussion is taking place about the deletion of a draft that is a copy and paste of a section here and thus appears to be a POV Fork from this article. Fiddle Faddle 11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion is taking place 

message: There seemed to be nothing there about pressure.  I've added some brief text, 
Pressure can be monitored as a patient performs exercises while resting against an air-filled cushion.   This is pertinent to physiotherapy. Alternatively, the patient may actively grip or press against an air-filled cushion of custom shape. 
and hope others can improve by building on and amending it.  I have added two references that happen to be to consumer products, which were chosen because they were representative references I could find online.  You are welcome to replace them with some more neutral academic-style references (if you can find them) due to dislike for the type of references used!
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure 

message: The claims made by the Heartmath Institute read like pseudoscience. Do we have any peer-reviewed evidence to support them? MrEarlGray (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heartmath Institute 

message: Adding a note that I've mentioned this article at WP:FTN. Sunrise (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Dec 2023