• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Tracking Health and Wellness Applications of Brain Science

Spanish
sb-logo-with-brain
  • Resources
    • Monthly eNewsletter
    • Solving the Brain Fitness Puzzle
    • The SharpBrains Guide to Brain Fitness
    • How to evaluate brain training claims
    • Resources at a Glance
  • Brain Teasers
    • Top 25 Brain Teasers & Games for Teens and Adults
    • Brain Teasers for each Cognitive Ability
    • More Mind Teasers & Games for Adults of any Age
  • Virtual Summits
    • 2019 SharpBrains Virtual Summit
    • Speaker Roster
    • Brainnovations Pitch Contest
    • 2017 SharpBrains Virtual Summit
    • 2016 SharpBrains Virtual Summit
    • 2015 SharpBrains Virtual Summit
    • 2014 SharpBrains Virtual Summit
  • Report: Pervasive Neurotechnology
  • Report: Digital Brain Health
  • About
    • Mission & Team
    • Endorsements
    • Public Speaking
    • In the News
    • Contact Us

More on Neurofeedback’s Brain Training Value

February 24, 2008 by Alvaro Fernandez

(Note: neu­ro­feed­back is a form of biofeed­back that mea­sures brain waves and that, accord­ing to prac­ti­tion­ers, pro­vides good “brain train­ing” for spe­cif­ic clin­i­cal conditions).
A few weeks ago Dr. David Rabin­er wrote a great post on How Strong is the Research Sup­port for Neu­ro­feed­back in Atten­tion Deficits?, con­clud­ing that

- “It is for these rea­sons that neu­ro­feed­back is under­stand­ably regard­ed as an unproven treat­ment approach for ADHD at this time by many ADHD researchers.

- How­ev­er, these stud­ies do pro­vide a sol­id basis for sug­gest­ing that if par­ents choose to pur­sue neu­ro­feed­back for their child, there is a rea­son­able chance that their child will ben­e­fit even though we can’t be sure that it is the spe­cif­ic EEG train­ing that is respon­si­ble for the ben­e­fits. Thus, although the effi­ca­cy of neu­ro­feed­back has yet to be con­clu­sive­ly con­firmed in a ran­dom­ized, place­bo-con­trolled tri­al, it is impor­tant to place this lim­i­ta­tion in the con­text of the sup­port­ive research evi­dence that has been accumulated.

- Pro­vid­ing this con­text can help fam­i­lies bet­ter under­stand the strengths and lim­i­ta­tions of the exist­ing research on neu­ro­feed­back and enable them to make a bet­ter informed deci­sion about whether to con­sid­er this treat­ment option for their child.”

This post prompt­ed sev­er­al good com­ments, one of which is repro­duced below in its entire­ty, since it adds an inter­est­ing perspective.
Bernard writes: My wife tried EEG neu­ro­feed­back over 10 years ago in the hopes of nor­mal­iz­ing her brain func­tion­ing to over­come life­long epilep­sy. She had a his­to­ry of mul­ti­ple, dai­ly absence seizures and grand mal (ton­ic clonic) seizures once every two years.

After 3 and a half months of twice week­ly ses­sions, we almost gave up on the neu­ro­feed­back. It was burn­ing a hole in our wal­let (no insur­ance cov­ered it) and we were not see­ing any results. How­ev­er, we stuck with it (most­ly because my wife refused to poi­son her liv­er with anti-epilep­tic drugs).

After 5 months, it was like some­one had turned a switch. She stopped hav­ing seizures, was calmer, had bet­ter mem­o­ry and cog­ni­tive func­tion­ing (think­ing clear­er). We stopped the neu­ro­feed­back ses­sions and she went 4 years with­out a sin­gle seizure event and like­ly would still be com­plete­ly seizure free today we had not start­ed a fam­i­ly (her TC seizure activ­i­ty returned, but not the absence seizures, and got pro­gres­sive­ly worse with each preg­nan­cy — but that’s a dif­fer­ent story).

After our expe­ri­ence, I did as much dig­ging as I could about EEG neu­ro­feed­back (see http://www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/forums/f22/eeg-neurofeedback-501/ ) and I’m real­ly out­raged that the med­ical indus­try con­tin­ues to “poo-poo” the resound­ing body of evi­dence for it.

Snip­pets from my findings:“Randomized dou­ble blind place­bo con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­als (RCT) are the cur­rent “gold stan­dard” for demon­strat­ing clin­i­cal effi­ca­cy of new drugs or ther­a­pies. It is very dif­fi­cult for new ther­a­peu­tic inter­ven­tions to gain broad accep­tance in the absence of such tri­als. Recent events have raised seri­ous ques­tions about the con­di­tions under which place­bo (sham) con­trols can be used. The inter­na­tion­al stan­dards pub­lished by the World Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion (Dec­la­ra­tion of Helsin­ki) pro­hib­it place­bo-con­trolled stud­ies when known effec­tive treat­ments exist. Addi­tion­al­ly, there is new inter­est in iden­ti­fy­ing the mech­a­nisms under­ly­ing the place­bo response, which may chal­lenge the “place­bo” as a legit­i­mate con­trol con­di­tion. Both of these events should be of con­sid­er­able inter­est to those inter­est­ed in clin­i­cal psy­chophys­i­ol­o­gy in gen­er­al and neu­rother­a­py in particular. ”

“Recent New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine reviews of research design have cast doubt on the need for place­bo con­trolled designs. Their review has shown that when there is a pre­pon­der­ance of case series reports, the con­cor­dance between those results and those of the “gold stan­dard” (dou­ble blind place­bo con­trolled stud­ies) was very high. Many in the field are now argu­ing against doing a dou­ble blind study due to the lack of prop­er humane treat­ment of those in the con­trol group (receiv­ing no treat­ment), an approach which is also now con­sid­ered uneth­i­cal by the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion when known treat­ments exist.”

“Since the first sin­gle-case study, report­ed over 30 years ago (Ster­man & Fri­ar, 1972), a fair num­ber of con­trolled clin­i­cal stud­ies, stem­ming from many dif­fer­ent lab­o­ra­to­ries, have pro­duced con­sis­tent data on the effi­ca­cy of SMR train­ing in epilep­tic patients. It is par­tic­u­lar­ly note­wor­thy that these results have been achieved in an extreme­ly dif­fi­cult sub­group of epilep­sy patients, those with poor­ly con­trolled seizures who had proven unre­spon­sive to phar­ma­co­log­i­cal treat­ment. We will here pro­vide only a cur­so­ry overview of this clin­i­cal research lit­er­a­ture. For a more detailed treat­ment the inter­est­ed read­er is referred to Ster­man (2000), while oth­er recent sum­maries have also been pro­vid­ed by Mon­der­er et al. (2002), and Walk­er and Kozlows­ki (2005).

…
In review­ing the data accu­mu­lat­ed in these stud­ies, Ster­man (2000) found that 82% of 174 par­tic­i­pat­ing patients who were oth­er­wise not con­trolled had shown sig­nif­i­cant­ly improved seizure con­trol (defined as a min­i­mum of 50% reduc­tion in seizure inci­dence), with around 5% of these cas­es report­ing a com­plete lack of seizures for up to 1 year sub­se­quent to train­ing cessation. …”

Because of the prob­lems with design­ing a gold stan­dard study, the Asso­ci­a­tion for Applied Psy­chophys­i­ol­o­gy and Biofeed­back (AAPB) has devel­oped their own rat­ing scale for mea­sur­ing effi­ca­cy of neu­ro­feed­back for a giv­en condition:

Rat­ing explanation:
http://www.aapb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3336

Con­di­tions with ratings:
http://www.aapb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3327

What real­ly gets my goat is that EEG neu­ro­feed­back has been stud­ied now since the 60s — almost 50 years and there have been no reports of iatro­ge­n­e­sis (a harm­ful effect pro­duced by the heal­er or the heal­ing process): “For­tu­nate­ly, adverse reac­tions to biofeed­back train­ing are over­all rare, and when they occur they are rel­a­tive­ly tran­sient or read­i­ly dealt with by com­pe­tent prac­ti­tion­ers (Ham­mond, 2001; Schwartz & Schwartz, 1995).”

So here we have a treat­ment option that has been stud­ied for over 50 years, has no negative/side/adverse effects, has tons of evi­dence sup­port­ing it’s effi­ca­cy, but does­n’t have a sin­gle com­mer­cial enti­ty that “owns” it in the same way that drug com­pa­nies and med­ical device com­pa­nies own their solu­tions. No com­pa­ny is push­ing for FDA approval — or stud­ies — or mar­ket­ing it, because it’s not cost effec­tive for them.

Cyberon­ics was able to get FDA approval, accep­tance by the neu­rol­o­gy indus­try and insur­ance cov­er­age for their VNS med­ical device for epilep­sy with stud­ies show­ing more dubi­ous effi­ca­cy than EEG neu­ro­feed­back and with well estab­lished, poten­tial­ly seri­ous adverse risks. It tru­ly infu­ri­ates me to see how the com­mer­cial aspect of the med­ical indus­try dri­ves options for patient choice in treatments.

———————-

(Note:  I will now bring the few com­ments that fol­lowed, so it is eas­i­er to con­tin­ue the con­ver­sa­tion here).

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pock­et

Filed Under: Attention & ADD/ADHD Tagged With: AAPB, biofeedback, Brain-Training, brain-waves, Cyberonics, David-Rabiner, Declaration-of-Helsinki, EEG-neurofeedback, EEG-training, epilepsy, gold-standard, Neurofeedback, placebo, PlayAttention, therapeutic-interventions, World-Medical-Association

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Alvaro says

    February 24, 2008 at 11:41

    Dear Bernard, thank you for such a detailed response. If you don’t mind, I will pub­lish it as its own post next week, so that more peo­ple can see it, and respond.

    You raise many good points. And I am hap­py that neu­ro­feed­back helped your wife. Now, noth­ing that you have writ­ten, in my view, con­tra­dicts Dr. Rabin­er’s con­clu­sion. Fur­ther­more, the fact that neu­ro­feed­back has been around for so long, may make one ques­tion why no one attempts the type of study he proposes.

    In fact, in those same rat­ings you link to, one can see only one appli­ca­tion reach­es Lev­els 5, and it is not ADD/ ADHD. Which is basi­cal­ly what Dr. Rabin­er is say­ing, with oth­er words.

    This is not about drugs vs. no drugs. Some non-drug-based approach­es, such as cog­ni­tive ther­a­py or forms of com­put­er-based work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing are start­ing to show effi­ca­cy as com­ple­ment to drugs in well-designed tri­als. And it is not about biofeed­back in gen­er­al, which has clear research sup­port for spe­cif­ic applications.

    You may know that com­pa­nies like Play Atten­tion sell neu­ro­feed­back machines direct to par­ents, for use with kids who have ADD/ ADHD. Have you seen research sup­port­ing an invest­ment of more than $1,000 in such pro­grams? They may work, and par­ents are free to spend their mon­ey as they want- but they deserve to know that it is not proven.

  2. Bernard says

    February 24, 2008 at 11:47

    Hi Alvaro,

    I don’t mind if you repub­lish the comment.

    Play Atten­tion is not a full fledged neu­ro­feed­back machine like the ones used in stud­ies. It only process­es (IIRC) the alpha wave chan­nel. EEG Neu­ro­feed­back machines like Brain­mas­ter’s Atlantis sys­tem, Zen­gar Insti­tute’s Neu­ro­Care sys­tem, etc. man­age up to 5 wave chan­nels — alpha, beta, theta, delta and (some­times) gam­ma. It also does­n’t per­form QEEG map­pings, so it is not on the same lev­el as a treat­ment option as EEG neu­ro­feed­back as defined in the studies. 

    “Fur­ther­more, the fact that neu­ro­feed­back has been around for so long, may make one ques­tion why no one attempts the type of study he pro­pos­es.” — Alvaro

    ~~~

    “The most con­clu­sive test of neu­ro­feed­back treat­ment would include ran­dom assign­ment and a con­trol con­di­tion that close­ly matched the neu­ro­feed­back con­di­tion. For exam­ple, chil­dren could receive video game coach­ing from a sup­port­ive adult for the same time peri­od. Or, even bet­ter, they could do exact­ly what chil­dren get­ting the neu­ro­feed­back were doing but not receive direct feed­back on their EEG states.” — Dr. Rabiner

    ~~~

    EEG neu­ro­feed­back is not a “treat­ment” in the clas­si­cal sense. It is a train­ing pro­gram that requires tai­lor­ing over time by the prac­ti­tion­er and active par­tic­i­pa­tion from the patient. It is not pos­si­ble to sim­u­late this effec­tive­ly over time for a “blind” study, much less a dou­ble blind study.

    But the larg­er answer as to why no one attempts the type of study he pro­pos­es is $$$:

    “For a very promis­ing treat­ment tar­get­ing such a
    seri­ous con­di­tion as epilep­sy, the num­ber of large-scale clin­i­cal tri­als of neurofeedback
    train­ing to date is dis­ap­point­ing. A like­ly rea­son for this state of affairs is that
    neu­ro­feed­back research is a very time- and work-inten­sive enter­prise that has
    tra­di­tion­al­ly not received exten­sive research fund­ing and has, for obvi­ous rea­sons, not
    been pur­sued by the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal industry.”

    http://sica.stanford.edu/events/brainwaves/FoundationsofNeurofeedback.pdf

    As I men­tioned pre­vi­ous­ly, no com­pa­ny owns a patent on EEG neu­ro­feed­back — it’s a train­ing process, not a drug or spe­cif­ic med­ical device. It is not eco­nom­i­cal­ly jus­ti­fi­able for a for-prof­it com­pa­ny to spon­sor the nec­es­sary research. There is no ROI. So, it’s up to non-prof­it groups/charities to spon­sor this kind of research. While some have spon­sored small stud­ies recent­ly (such as FACES at NYU), there has­n’t been and isn’t any­thing being done on the scale that appears to be nec­es­sary for the skeptics.

  3. Alvaro says

    February 25, 2008 at 12:30

    Hel­lo Bernard, you raise some good points but, net net, the sit­u­a­tion is what Dr. Rabin­er describes: neu­ro­feed­back is promis­ing, and may well work, but it is unproven accord­ing to sci­en­tif­ic standards.

    Parents/ oth­er users need to make their own deci­sion on whether to use neu­ro­feed­back or not, as a tool in the toolk­it, with its Pros and Cons. There is not enough clinical/ sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence to war­rant a wider, auto­mat­ic “pre­scrip­tion”.

  4. Bernard says

    February 27, 2008 at 7:47

    “There is not enough clinical/ sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence to war­rant a wider, auto­mat­ic “pre­scrip­tion”.”

    How much is enough?

  5. Alvaro says

    February 27, 2008 at 8:36

    Hel­lo Bernard, with all my respect, it is not even close.

    One thing is to argue that neu­ro­feed­back may be an appro­pri­ate tool in spe­cif­ic cas­es where a clin­i­cian can sug­gest that inter­ven­tion makes sense and the patient agrees to try, and anoth­er one to imply the tool deserves a wider, auto­mat­ic “pre­scrip­tion”. For the lat­er, you’d need many high-qual­i­ty ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als-the type that Dr. Rabin­er was sug­gest­ing neu­ro­feed­back, at least in the case of atten­tion deficits, has none.

    Which does­n’t mean neu­ro­feed­back isn’t a valid option. It CAN be. Let me revis­it  one of David’s sen­tences: “How­ev­er, these stud­ies do pro­vide a sol­id basis for sug­gest­ing that if par­ents choose to pur­sue neu­ro­feed­back for their child, there is a rea­son­able chance that their child will ben­e­fit even though we can’t be sure that it is the spe­cif­ic EEG train­ing that is respon­si­ble for the benefits.”

    If neu­ro­feed­back prac­ti­tion­ers need to go beyond this, they need to enlist some uni­ver­si­ty-based researchers and con­duct a good tri­al. Per­haps the mil­i­tary would be inter­est­ed in fund­ing such a study.

  6. Peter Freer says

    March 8, 2008 at 10:34

    The infor­ma­tion regard­ing Play Atten­tion is incor­rect. It is not an alpha train­er. It is a phys­i­o­log­ic mon­i­tor that can­not be aug­ment­ed from fac­to­ry set­tings like an EEG device. I want­ed to make it clear that Play Atten­tion is not clin­i­cal neu­ro­feed­back and has nev­er strived to be. Frankly, we don’t try to change brain­waves and are uncon­cerned with their change. We are con­cerned with cog­ni­tive and behav­ioral out­comes. The feed­back used is sim­ply to place the stu­dent in an atten­tive state to learn deficit skills like time on-task, mem­o­ry, fil­ter­ing out dis­trac­tions, visu­al track­ing, audi­to­ry pro­cess­ing, etc. We have a patent pend­ing on our inte­grat­ed behav­ioral shap­ing com­po­nent as well. Neu­ro­feed­back pro­po­nents have main­tained that chang­ing brain­waves facil­i­tates learn­ing of these skills, how­ev­er I find that rather facile. Chang­ing a brain­wave does not insure that I will learn to fin­ish home­work on time, have bet­ter short-term mem­o­ry, etc. If that occurs, it’s sim­ply by coin­ci­dence not by osmo­sis. We strive to teach these skills directly.

  7. Alvaro says

    March 8, 2008 at 5:48

    Hel­lo Peter, thank you for your comment.

    What you say makes a lot of sense. Now, the ques­tions then become, how exact­ly do you train cog­ni­tive skills, and how do you show the “cog­ni­tive and behav­ioral out­comes” from your prod­uct? We have not come across peer-reviewed pub­lished stud­ies that we can eval­u­ate and dis­cuss in this blog. And we would love to, giv­en the num­ber of years your prod­uct has been in the market.
    Thank you

  8. Peter Freer says

    March 25, 2008 at 8:13

    What I say does make sense. Specif­i­cal­ly, one teach­es cog­ni­tive skills. We casu­al­ly call it train­ing, but cog­ni­tive skills can be taught. This has been done his­tor­i­cal­ly since the time of Socrates. The feed­back insures we have stu­dent atten­tion. It acti­vates and con­trols cog­ni­tive activ­i­ties like work­ing mem­o­ry prac­tice, spa­tial mem­o­ry, time on-task, visu­al track­ing, audi­to­ry pro­cess­ing, atten­tion sta­mi­na, etc. If the stu­dent fails to main­tain max­i­mum atten­tion, the game stops, alert­ing them to focus-in once again. We then quan­ti­fy how much mem­o­ry improves over time, teach stu­dents to fin­ish assign­ments on-time, mea­sure visu­al track­ing abil­i­ty, etc. Then we spend a lot of time on strate­gies to trans­fer and gen­er­al­ize these skills.

    We’ve received 3 patents based on this approach. We also have a patent pend­ing behav­ior shap­ing mod­ule inte­grat­ed so that stu­dents can learn to self-reg­u­late by learn­ing to focus more. It’s far too dif­fi­cult to explain in a short response like this.

    We have an ongo­ing con­trolled study at Tufts Med­ical School, are begin­ning one at Hard­ing Uni­ver­si­ty, and are start­ing one in a pub­lic school dis­trict next year. Data should be pub­lished in late 2009. 

    The rea­son we’ve sur­vived and ruled this mar­ket inter­na­tion­al­ly for 14 years is because our method makes sense, is found­ed in sound teach­ing prac­tices that are thou­sands of years old and inte­grat­ed them with feed­back tech­nol­o­gy. That’s so rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent and refresh­ing that we are in more house­holds, TBI hos­pi­tals, psy­chol­o­gist’s offices, MD’s offices, learn­ing cen­ters, and schools (over 450 dis­tricts in US alone) that no one in this indus­try comes close. Could we have done this if Play Atten­tion did­n’t work? Not like­ly. Fur­ther­more, what we’ll intro­duce both tech­no­log­i­cal­ly and edu­ca­tion­al­ly over 2008 will alter the future of this indus­try once again. 

    These forums are noto­ri­ous for wrong­ly inter­pret­ing or describ­ing Play Atten­tion which is what occurred here. I only meant to cor­rect that. One should be respon­si­ble or at least knowl­edge­able before mak­ing state­ments espe­cial­ly on a respect­ed forum such as this.

  9. Bernard says

    January 7, 2009 at 10:34

    I have ref­er­enced this dis­cus­sion in a let­ter to the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Neurology:

    http://www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/forums/f37/pushing-neurofeedback-into-mainstream-5418/

Primary Sidebar

Top Articles on Brain Health and Neuroplasticity

  1. Can you grow your hippocampus? Yes. Here’s how, and why it matters
  2. How learning changes your brain
  3. To harness neuroplasticity, start with enthusiasm
  4. Three ways to protect your mental health during –and after– COVID-19
  5. Why you turn down the radio when you're lost
  6. Solving the Brain Fitness Puzzle Is the Key to Self-Empowered Aging
  7. Ten neu­rotech­nolo­gies about to trans­form brain enhance­ment & health
  8. Five reasons the future of brain enhancement is digital, pervasive and (hopefully) bright
  9. What Educators and Parents Should Know About Neuroplasticity and Dance
  10. The Ten Habits of Highly Effective Brains
  11. Six tips to build resilience and prevent brain-damaging stress
  12. Can brain training work? Yes, if it meets these 5 conditions
  13. What are cognitive abilities and how to boost them?
  14. Eight Tips To Remember What You Read
  15. Twenty Must-Know Facts to Harness Neuroplasticity and Improve Brain Health

Top 10 Brain Teasers and Illusions

  1. You think you know the colors? Try the Stroop Test
  2. Check out this brief attention experiment
  3. Test your stress level
  4. Guess: Are there more brain connections or leaves in the Amazon?
  5. Quick brain teasers to flex two key men­tal mus­cles
  6. Count the Fs in this sentence
  7. Can you iden­tify Apple’s logo?
  8. Ten classic optical illu­sions to trick your mind
  9. What do you see?
  10. Fun Mental Rotation challenge
  • Check our Top 25 Brain Teasers, Games and Illusions

Join 12,619 readers exploring, at no cost, the latest in neuroplasticity and brain health.

By subscribing you agree to receive our free, monthly eNewsletter. We don't rent or sell emails collected, and you may unsubscribe at any time.

IMPORTANT: Please check your inbox or spam folder in a couple minutes and confirm your subscription.

Get In Touch!

Contact Us

660 4th Street, Suite 205,
San Francisco, CA 94107 USA

About Us

SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking health and performance applications of brain science. We prepare general and tailored market reports, publish consumer guides, produce an annual global and virtual conference, and provide strategic advisory services.

© 2022 SharpBrains. All Rights Reserved - Privacy Policy