This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neurofeedback article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
|
||
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well this article needs to be improved a bit, sadly I'm more or less out of time for this. Here are a few points why, in my humble opinion, this is necessary:
1. The article is mainly about EEG-Neurofeedback, which is fine with me as fMRI-NFB is relatively new and it is really hard to find someone with this technology. However, we should clearly distinguish between EEG-NFB and fMRI-NFB which is not always the case in this article. A few examples
2. We should only use EEG-Biofeedback in the beginning of the article an then EEG-NFB for clarity (and because the article is called Neurofeedback...)
3. “Definition” should not include something like the effectiveness of the therapy, rather what it is or not, what types there are and their differences and how it works. Maybe that's already to much...
4. The same for the “Training process”, it should not include something about the effectiveness...
5. We should split the history section from the application section! I would suggest a list with the efficacy level or different sections with the research or both.
6. Maybe we should have a brainwave section (alpha, beta, theta SMR and so on) Thats it for now. Best Regards -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 09:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
In the ADHD section the last sentences:
"Further research on the benefits of neurofeedback for ADHD is warranted given this history of mixed results. Future research on this treatment needs to employ appropriate sham neurofeedback or other attention-placebo control groups, double-blinded procedures and measures of ADHD collected both in school and at home to better evaluate the efficacy of this treatment for ADHD."
Either needs a reference, should be removed as OR, or perhaps a new section can be added to the article describing current research topics in Neurofeedback science and application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.58.11 ( talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is full of psuedoscientific mush. Why have so many "citation needed" tags been tolerated? If you don't believe me about the questionable nature of it, just google neurofeedback quackery. Here's good summary by a neurologist: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neurofeedback-and-the-need-for-science-based-medicine/
A lot of the "sources" on the page are from advocacy groups like Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, which should not be considered unbiased.
Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"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))
Moved text:
Extended content
|
---|
These criticisms; however, are now moot as research continues to confirm that neurofeedback is an efficacious treatment intervention. In October 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognized that the scientific literature on biofeedback (including neurofeedback) provides "Level 1, Best Support" as an evidence-based child and adolescent psychosocial intervention.
[1]
|
Where to start... First of all, the PDF from the AAP references " biofeedback", not " neurofeedback". They are related, but not the same. Secondly, this is basically a quick reference chart for pediatricians on potential therapy. It does not in any way discuss scientific literature or studies. There's a good chance that if the AAP put this out, they have some other documentation on their website, but this is not really evidence. Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
To summarize, the statement "these criticisms... are now moot" isn't even remotely born out by the reference. Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The criticism section is not for debate. It is for citing examples of experts in related fields criticizing Neurofeedback. Items supporting Neurofeedback should be placed elsewhere in the article unless they are specific rebuttals to criticism. For example, if Dr. Smith wrote an article saying that Neurofeedback was bunk, and Dr. Jones wrote an article saying that Dr. Smith was wrong because of x, y, and z, then both would belong in the criticism section. Simply putting in a reference that you (as an editor) feel proves that some criticism is wrong is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling.M.Archer ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
A common professional neurofeedback therapy session today goes as follows:
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)
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)
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
So I found obvious plagiarism in the very first paragraph of this entry: the two sentences prior to the first footnote are lifted directly from the abstract to the cited article. Clearly this article was not written by experts and should be taken down. Any article dealing with a therapy or other medical intervention should be thoroughly vetted by experts--otherwise it's dangerous.
I've tried to clean up the article the best I could the last few weeks: Improving citations, adding more accurate criticism, and reformatting. However, I mostly expanded existing sections. This article is missing three key areas which would greatly improve the scope:
1 - A discussion of the mechanisms of neurofeedback. There is scientific consensus as to how it is meant to operate, just not to the degree it is successful in all cases. Neuroplasticity could also be joined with this section.
2 - A section dedicated to procedure as well as an overview of the different protocol types and their use.
3 - An adverse effects section. Although neurofeedback is regarded as safe - headaches, triggering of seizure or migraine, or other effects from use of ISF deserve recognition.
See: Article on TMS for a better written example of another modern noninvasive brain procedure
Long story short: I overhauled most of the article. I figured it's easiest to just rip the bandaid off and get it over with. Bullet points of the change follow. If you have any notes or issues the changes, you can leave them here for discussion. Apologies for keeping this short, but I'm utterly exhausted after having done this.
Changes:
diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1127567323&oldid=1125547701&title=Neurofeedback&diffmode=visual
SkSlick ( talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
As other editors have pointed out before, this article is of low quality. I'm especially concerned about the egregious lack of references. Not only is this not a science-based treatment, so we are essentially talking about a quack therapy, but there aren't even enough references to support all the various claims made about it on this page. For that reason, I'd like to go ahead and start pruning a lot of the unreferenced content. If you have references that you would like to add, please do so, otherwise, any unreferenced content is fair game for removal, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neurofeedback article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
|
||
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well this article needs to be improved a bit, sadly I'm more or less out of time for this. Here are a few points why, in my humble opinion, this is necessary:
1. The article is mainly about EEG-Neurofeedback, which is fine with me as fMRI-NFB is relatively new and it is really hard to find someone with this technology. However, we should clearly distinguish between EEG-NFB and fMRI-NFB which is not always the case in this article. A few examples
2. We should only use EEG-Biofeedback in the beginning of the article an then EEG-NFB for clarity (and because the article is called Neurofeedback...)
3. “Definition” should not include something like the effectiveness of the therapy, rather what it is or not, what types there are and their differences and how it works. Maybe that's already to much...
4. The same for the “Training process”, it should not include something about the effectiveness...
5. We should split the history section from the application section! I would suggest a list with the efficacy level or different sections with the research or both.
6. Maybe we should have a brainwave section (alpha, beta, theta SMR and so on) Thats it for now. Best Regards -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 09:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
In the ADHD section the last sentences:
"Further research on the benefits of neurofeedback for ADHD is warranted given this history of mixed results. Future research on this treatment needs to employ appropriate sham neurofeedback or other attention-placebo control groups, double-blinded procedures and measures of ADHD collected both in school and at home to better evaluate the efficacy of this treatment for ADHD."
Either needs a reference, should be removed as OR, or perhaps a new section can be added to the article describing current research topics in Neurofeedback science and application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.58.11 ( talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is full of psuedoscientific mush. Why have so many "citation needed" tags been tolerated? If you don't believe me about the questionable nature of it, just google neurofeedback quackery. Here's good summary by a neurologist: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neurofeedback-and-the-need-for-science-based-medicine/
A lot of the "sources" on the page are from advocacy groups like Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, which should not be considered unbiased.
Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"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))
Moved text:
Extended content
|
---|
These criticisms; however, are now moot as research continues to confirm that neurofeedback is an efficacious treatment intervention. In October 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognized that the scientific literature on biofeedback (including neurofeedback) provides "Level 1, Best Support" as an evidence-based child and adolescent psychosocial intervention.
[1]
|
Where to start... First of all, the PDF from the AAP references " biofeedback", not " neurofeedback". They are related, but not the same. Secondly, this is basically a quick reference chart for pediatricians on potential therapy. It does not in any way discuss scientific literature or studies. There's a good chance that if the AAP put this out, they have some other documentation on their website, but this is not really evidence. Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
To summarize, the statement "these criticisms... are now moot" isn't even remotely born out by the reference. Sterling.M.Archer ( talk) 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The criticism section is not for debate. It is for citing examples of experts in related fields criticizing Neurofeedback. Items supporting Neurofeedback should be placed elsewhere in the article unless they are specific rebuttals to criticism. For example, if Dr. Smith wrote an article saying that Neurofeedback was bunk, and Dr. Jones wrote an article saying that Dr. Smith was wrong because of x, y, and z, then both would belong in the criticism section. Simply putting in a reference that you (as an editor) feel proves that some criticism is wrong is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling.M.Archer ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
A common professional neurofeedback therapy session today goes as follows:
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)
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)
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
So I found obvious plagiarism in the very first paragraph of this entry: the two sentences prior to the first footnote are lifted directly from the abstract to the cited article. Clearly this article was not written by experts and should be taken down. Any article dealing with a therapy or other medical intervention should be thoroughly vetted by experts--otherwise it's dangerous.
I've tried to clean up the article the best I could the last few weeks: Improving citations, adding more accurate criticism, and reformatting. However, I mostly expanded existing sections. This article is missing three key areas which would greatly improve the scope:
1 - A discussion of the mechanisms of neurofeedback. There is scientific consensus as to how it is meant to operate, just not to the degree it is successful in all cases. Neuroplasticity could also be joined with this section.
2 - A section dedicated to procedure as well as an overview of the different protocol types and their use.
3 - An adverse effects section. Although neurofeedback is regarded as safe - headaches, triggering of seizure or migraine, or other effects from use of ISF deserve recognition.
See: Article on TMS for a better written example of another modern noninvasive brain procedure
Long story short: I overhauled most of the article. I figured it's easiest to just rip the bandaid off and get it over with. Bullet points of the change follow. If you have any notes or issues the changes, you can leave them here for discussion. Apologies for keeping this short, but I'm utterly exhausted after having done this.
Changes:
diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1127567323&oldid=1125547701&title=Neurofeedback&diffmode=visual
SkSlick ( talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
As other editors have pointed out before, this article is of low quality. I'm especially concerned about the egregious lack of references. Not only is this not a science-based treatment, so we are essentially talking about a quack therapy, but there aren't even enough references to support all the various claims made about it on this page. For that reason, I'd like to go ahead and start pruning a lot of the unreferenced content. If you have references that you would like to add, please do so, otherwise, any unreferenced content is fair game for removal, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)