On some research-community contributions to the myth and symbol of biofeedback.

This paper suggests that some of the responsibility for the misrepresentations of biofeedback noted by Kimmel (Int. J. Psychophysiol., 1986, 3: 211-218) rests with the research community's treatment of the topic. With regard to the "myth" of biofeedback, it is argued that, after Miller's (Science, 1969, 163: 434-445) influential paper, most researchers' treatment of the proper-control-for-biofeedback problem was one that selectively lowered normal methodological standards, and therefore produced results that were improperly interpreted as evidence for biofeedback (or instrumental conditioning). The shift from instrumental conditioning to biofeedback terminology, which was based primarily on political ideology rather than on logic, may have been made easier by a reluctance on the part of the scientific community to engage in reflective analyses of concepts and definitional problems.