Talk:Neurofeedback

message: I removed a paragraph that tried to make the case that although there is no known scientific explanation for the perceived effectiveness of neurofeedback therapies, no one understood how endorphins worked at one time either. Off topic and illogical. 
Highnumber (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I must Correct my self I undid your change under the misrepresentation that you had added the section not removed it.Donhoraldo (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph about endorphins

message: The section was reporting on one meta analysis of only 15 studies, all but 2 with a N less than 100. All with tiny effects. A third of the studies, including one studies composing nearly half of the patients of the entire meta analysis uncontrolled, that's 718 out of a N of 1194 with no controls on a completely subjective test. All we can say from this is the analysis is completely worthless and thus the section talking about the meta analysis is completely worthless.Donhoraldo (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section "Evidence based" 

message: The article defines neurofeedback as: "Neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback that uses electroencephalography to provide a signal that can be used by a person to receive feedback about brain activity."
Though, similar things can be done using fNIR and other methods, and a quick google search shows that the term seems to be used here as well.
Øln (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does neurofeedback have to be EEG? 

message: I added Advert and verification tags to this article (with IP address, sorry). I came to this article to study the efficacy of the method (questioned here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html). I'm not an expert in EEG-biofeedback as such, but am familiar with usage of EEG and other physiological signals in psychological research. My understanding is that neurofeedback methods are not a very central component in mainstream psychology or therapy, but this doesn't of course in any way mean they don't work. However, given this background I was surprised that the efficacy isn't discussed much here. Also I find the structure a bit odd and the article stresses too much some in my opinion quite trivial aspects such as over detailed sections about certification and "Neurofeedback in practice". Also many of the references are to specialized biofeedback journals and a bit questionable websites with vested interests. --Jampekka (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article illustrates one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses:  articles about fringe topics that not many editors are interested in are easily dominated by enthusiasts, who make it more trouble to clean them up than it is worth.  This article really ought to be trimmed of a lot of unsupportable statements.  And you should certainly not use it to study the efficacy of the method -- more accurately you shouldn't believe anything it says. Looie496 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I indeed ran into the same problem over at Great Pacific Garbage Patch. But its good for me to see it here too, makes me more aware of the problem. I also second the skepticism for overly enthusiastic claims. Jacealcard (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've killed the "sites of interest" and "research and development" parts of the external links section. WP:NOT a link farm. I also cleared a the crap and dead links from the only remaining section. Link farms are usually another sign of the type of problems you describe; nobody is paying attention, so the article acquires more and more links over time --GraemeL (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good!  I'll try to help out if trouble arises. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable quality and neutrality 

message: "COMMENT: The last reference above is from 2000. Biofeedback technology has changed significantly, and the quality of research has improved relative to the 1990s timeframe. The title of the peer-reviewed [?] journal and sponsoring organization offers no re-assurance in terms of bias." This comment was made by editor 71.105.89.231 in the criticism section. (And it's me who moved this comment to the talk page. Lova Falk talk 08:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 71.105.89.231! You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this subject, so please, be bold and add or rewrite this section, using reliable sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lova - thanks for the encouragement.  My background is mathematics/engineering, although psychology and neurophysiology are areas of great interest to me.  I'm investigating the possibility of getting training in neurofeedback and/or biofeedback so I can work with my wife, a psychiatrist, in her practice.  I like the quality of comments among the contributors to this page and appreciate the light/humble tone you provide given the tentative and tenuous nature of knowledge - especially involving the brain/mind.  I'll contribute when/if possible.  Best regards, Jeff Daniels [jsd1415 >at< hotmail.com] 71.105.89.231 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jeff, I'm looking forward to your edits! Have you considered [an account]? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more recent information 

message: As a part of a university course dedicated to expanding Wikipedia articles related to psychology, I've added a section discussing the possible applications of neurofeedback in areas outside of medicine such as in sports and the performing arts. Any feedback would be much appreciated as I'm still relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles.StudentPSYche (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally dubious about those applications, but your contribution is very well written -- far better than most student contributions that I've seen.  The only thing that needs fixing is the handling of repeated refs.  When you reuse a citation, you don't have to enter all the information again.  Instead, the first time you use it, give it a "name", such as <ref name=Hammond>.  Then the next time you want to cite the same source, you can just use  and nothing more (notice the / after the name; this indicates that the contents of the reference are specified somewhere else).  I could fix this for you but it's a better learning experience if you do it yourself.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback! I've changed the format of the reused citations as you suggested. I appreciate the tip as I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. As to the validity of the claims, there really isn't a whole lot of research yet on non-medical applications of neurofeedback outside of sports. However, the literature I reviewed in regards to applications in sports seemed more robust and fairly promising. Of course, this is still a topic that needs to be studied at greater length, however, I thought it was worth mentioning if only to highlight the fact that the applications of neurofeedback need not be solely restricted to medical purposes.StudentPSYche (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: I move here a the section on how a session goes: it is completely unreferenced, quite "how to" manual, and also probably site specific and not generalizable. Not really encyclopedic. I move it here in case it serves to somebody to improve it and re-insert it (provided he finds suitable refs. --Garrondo (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurofeedback in practice

message: It seems to me that there is little on this page about the more recent research being done with neurofeedback. Also, why no mention of the trials the military is doing with soldiers with PTSD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.86.101 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Research 

message: I don't understand how this sentence is placed in definition:
   "Some feel that the most accurate form of neurofeedback is the one guided by qEEG,
    that is usually used in clinical settings. But this approach, although being helpful,
    is being seen by many as more using a linear science that is not in tune with modern,
    non-linear physics."
Also: quotes? I'm pretty sure some scientific research groups don't spend too much thoughts on NFB, because they prefer other methods. Nonetheless their opinion shouldn't be placed within a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.247.92 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, what is this definition? 

message: * 
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional source: Lofthouse et al. 

message: I'll keep this short because it's currently 3:00 am, but this page has several major issues, so many that it may be better to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
- Other than in the history section, it fails to differentiate between the efficacy of different neurofeedback protocols.  This would be like a page about pharmocology failing to differentiate between different classes of drugs.  To say that either neurofeedback "works" or "doesn't work" would be analogous to saying that drugs, as a whole, either "work" or "don't work".
- It seems to cherry-pick its sources in certain places.  
- Other than in the history section, it fails to differentiate between the different stages of the development of neurofeedback.  Any study that was done in a previous developmental stage should be either removed or shown that the same protocols are still being used today.
- There is a comical discrepancy between the medium size section entirely about the efficacy of neurofeedback for ADHD and the small sliver of text that to paraphrase, says "oh, and by the way, here's a generic list of stuff that psychiatrists try to fix."
- The article seems to be slightly biased in a few subtle ways, like an opinionated "non-believer" of neurofeedback swept through the article and gave his/her two cents via adding sources, taking away parts, etc.
- The page gives no information into the mechanistic ways that it works, i.e. bipolar montage, frequency pulling, amplitude manipulation, infra-low frequencies, operant conditioning or the lack there-of, etc.
I am not an expert, but I know enough about the field to pick out these major flaws.  I will help in rewriting it, but in my opinion it needs to be done by an expert in the field who is 
(a): familiar with the current empirical literature on the subject
(b): has an eclectic knowledge of the many different protocols
(c): is unbiased and can potentially write a section about the criticism of neurofeedback
EDIT:  the validity of sources also seems to be controversial since a good chunk of the research is coming from either the developers themselves or from various non-academic associations that have ties with people who are invested in the field.  I would personally question whether this bias is enough to invalidate their research on the basis that it is not enough bias to influence the results of the study.  It is also possible to question the validity of the "non-biased" sources because they are either too old, too sweeping, or that they may have flaws inherent to not having the expertise of someone active in the field.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8200:5A9E:70D3:7BCF:1CDD:99D3 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In my humble opinion, this page warrants a complete rewrite 

message: Biofeedback techniques that have proven effective on the individual can be easily quantified while proof of alterations to the collective cerebral functionality may not be so readily available. Mikrochik (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biofeedback via collective conscience 

message: I wrote a complete new article. The topic now focuses on Neurofeedback and also distinguishes in an organized manner the different types of neurofeedback.
Before, the article was telling more about organizations and certifications than neurofeedback itself. These might be interesting topics, but do not intrinsically have to do with neurofeedback but rather with the economics and private interests of associations.
A discussion and critique section is relevant as there are many open and even unaddressed questions and challenges in the field. NF-LF (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Reset - 2023-04-28