PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 3427124

Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training.

Abstract

In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models----correct research design----correct results----correct conclusions----advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations----faulty models----faulty research design----faulty results----faulty conclusions----confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of "biofeedback" as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, "Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective," we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of "biofeedback" and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is "biofeedback" with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind design that distinguish "specific" from "placebo effects," and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information--usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Shellenberger, J Green. 1987. Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00999199

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Verbal feedback from an expert is more effective than self-accessed feedback about motion efficiency in learning new surgical skills.

BACKGROUND: Teaching of technical surgical skills to undergraduate medical students in a laboratory setting away from the patient is not common practice. Because of the large volume of students and shortage of available teaching faculty new methods of teaching must be developed for this group of trainees. In this study we examined the effectiveness of computer-based video training, different types of computer-based motion efficiency feedback (with and without expert criteria), and expert feedback on learning of a basic technical skill in medical students. METHODS: Forty-five junior medical students were randomized into 3 groups and learned suturing and knot-tying skills. Group A received computer-generated feedback about the economy of their movements. Group B received the same motion economy feedback, as well as expert reference values. Group C received verbal feedback from an expert. All groups were pre-tested, allowed 18 practice trials, and post-tested, and their skill retention was retested after 1 month. Performance was assessed by expert analysis using an objective structured analysis of technical skill and by computer analysis (Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device [ICSAD]). RESULTS: All groups showed improvement from pre-test to post-test. However, only group C showed retention of skill on delayed performance testing. CONCLUSIONS: Verbal feedback from an expert instructor led to lasting improvements in technical skills performance. Providing information about motion efficiency did not lead to similar improvements.

Biofeedback, Psychology↗

Efficacy of biofeedback for migraine: a meta-analysis.

In this article, we meta-analytically examined the efficacy of biofeedback (BFB) in treating migraine. A computerized literature search of the databases Medline, PsycInfo, Psyndex and the Cochrane library, enhanced by a hand search, identified 86 outcome studies. A total of 55 studies, including randomized controlled trials as well as pre-post trials, met our inclusion criteria and were integrated. A medium effect size (d =0.58, 95% CI=0.52, 0.64) resulted for all BFB interventions and proved stable over an average follow-up phase of 17 months. Also, BFB was more effective than control conditions. Frequency of migraine attacks and perceived self-efficacy demonstrated the strongest improvements. Blood-volume-pulse feedback yielded higher effect sizes than peripheral skin temperature feedback and electromyography feedback. Moderator analyses revealed BFB in combination with home training to be more effective than therapies without home training. The influence of the meta-analytical methods on the effect sizes was systematically explored and the results proved to be robust across different methods of effect size calculation. Furthermore, there was no substantial relation between the validity of the integrated studies and the direct treatment effects. Finally, an intention-to-treat analysis showed that the treatment effects remained stable, even when drop-outs were considered as nonresponders.

Biofeedback, Psychology↗