Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Adverse and iatrogenic effects associated with psychotherapy have been substantiated in research for more than 40 years. Controlled research also exists in the field of neurofeedback (electroencephalographic biofeedback) that documents that negative effects can occur from inappropriate training. This article presents accumulating evidence, taken directly from acknowledgments by neurofeedback practitioners of the existence of both transient side effects and of more serious adverse reactions that have occurred. Unlicensed and unqualified practitioners pose a risk to the public and to the integrity and future of the pro- fession. It is vitally important that both professionals and professional societies emphasize standards of practice and that the public be protected from individuals seeking to use neurofeed- back to work with medical, psychiatric, and psychological conditions for which they are not qualified and licensed to work. Some in the field propose pursuing biofeedback or psychophy- siology licensure as a means to establish standards of practice and address ethical concerns. This is a reasonable option to consider, although it may take many years to implement in various states. In the meantime it is vitally important that individuals offering neurofeedback services for clinical diagnostic conditions be licensed to lawfully provide services for such conditions.
About one third of patients with epilepsy do not benefit from medical treatment. For these patients electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback is a viable alternative. EEG biofeedback, or neurofeedback, normalizes or enhances EEG activity by means of operant conditioning. While dozens of scientific reports have been published on neurofeedback for seizure disorder, most have been case series with too few subjects to establish efficacy. The purpose of this paper is to meta-analyze existing research on neurofeedback and epilepsy.We analyzed every EEG biofeedback study indexed in MedLine, PsychInfo, and PsychLit databases between 1970 and 2005 on epilepsy that provided seizure frequency change in response to feedback. Sixty-three studies have been published, 10 of which provided enough outcome information to be included in a meta-analysis. All studies consisted of patients whose seizures were not controlled by medical therapies, which is a very important factor to keep in mind when interpreting the results. Nine of 10 studies reinforced sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) while 1 study trained slow cortical potentials (SCP). All studies reported an overall mean decreased seizure incidence following treatment and 64 out of 87 patients (74%) reported fewer weekly seizures in response to EEG biofeedback. Treatment effect was mean log (post/pre) where pre and post represent number of seizures per week prior to treatment and at final evaluation, respectively. Due to prevalence of small groups, Hedges's g was computed for effect size. As sample heterogeneity was possible (Q test, p=.18), random effects were assumed and the effect of intervention was −0.233, SE= 0.057, z −4.11, p<.001.
Based on this meta-analysis, EEG operant conditioning was found to produce a significant reduction on seizure frequency. This finding is especially noteworthy given the patient group, individuals who had been unable to control their seizures with medical treatment.