Literature DB >> 3607088

Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures.

R L Hodes, E W Howland.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the signal increased with deviations in any direction from baseline EMG levels (Stabilization). The results supported the use of Ocular but not Stabilization feedback as a control procedure in frontalis EMG biofeedback studies. Ocular feedback did not produce reductions in frontalis EMG but did lead to changes in subjective measures of nonspecific treatment effects that were at least comparable to those obtained with Veridical feedback. Stabilization subjects produced small but significant reductions in EMG, felt the most bored as a result of their feedback training, and were the most likely to rate themselves as having received false feedback. The implications of attribution theory and multiprocess relaxation theory for the evaluation of nonspecific treatment effects are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3607088     DOI: 10.1007/bf01003480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul        ISSN: 0363-3586


  10 in total

1.  MANIFEST ANXIETY: UNIFACTORIAL OR MULTIFACTORIAL COMPOSITION?

Authors:  W D FENZ; S EPSTEIN
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1965-06

2.  A double-blind methodology for biofeedback research.

Authors:  H D Cohen; C Graham; S S Fotopoulos; M R Cook
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility.

Authors:  A Tellegen; G Atkinson
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  1974-06

4.  Cognitive and physiologic responses to EMG biofeedback and three types of pseudofeedback during a muscular relaxation task.

Authors:  J P Hatch; K Klatt; M Fitzgerald; L S Jasheway; J G Fisher
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1983-09

5.  Versatility in computer automation for biofeedback: the behavioral assessment and rehabilitative training system (BARTS).

Authors:  G K Montgomery; E W Howland; C S Cleeland; W C Mueller; M P Dearing
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1984-09

6.  Controlled group designs in biofeedback research: ask, "What does the control group control for?".

Authors:  J P Hatch
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1982-09

7.  Role of the feedback signal in electromyograph biofeedback: the relevance of attention.

Authors:  P J Qualls; P W Sheehan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1981-06

8.  Electrode placement, EMG feedback, and relaxation for tension headaches.

Authors:  C L Gray; R C Lyle; R J McGuire; D F Peck
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  1980

9.  Expectancies of reinforcement control in biofeedback and cognitive performance.

Authors:  J G Carlson; J L Feld
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1981-03

10.  A test of specific and nonspecific effects in the biofeedback treatment of tension headache.

Authors:  F Andrasik; K A Holroyd
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1980-10
  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  EMG stability as a biofeedback control.

Authors:  A Harver; J Segreto; H Kotses
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1992-06
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.