Literature DB >> 6671105

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

J P Hatch, K Klatt, M Fitzgerald, L S Jasheway, J G Fisher.   

Abstract

Four groups of normal human subjects were tested for their ability to reduce frontal muscle tension levels during presentation of veridical auditory biofeedback or auditory pseudofeedback. A double-blind methodology was used. Three groups of subjects assigned to the pseudofeedback conditions received a feedback signal that was not contingent on EMG activity but that followed one of three different patterns. One group received a truly random signal, the second received a signal that gradually increased in frequency (apparent failure), and the third received a signal that gradually decreased in frequency (apparent success). Dependent measures included both physiologic (frontal and neck EMG) and subjective reactions to the relaxation task. The different patterns of pseudofeedback did produce reliably different subjective responses, suggesting that the manipulations succeeded in producing unequal nonspecific effects that were unrelated to the feedback contingency specifically. However, these differential subjective effects were not strongly reflected in the physiologic responses since the differences in EMG levels among the four groups did not differ significantly at any stage of training. An analysis of the integrity of the double-blind procedure showed that although experimenters were effectively kept blind to group assignment, subjects' responding suggested a response bias as well as the possibility that the double-blind was breached. The utility of the double-blind methodology in biofeedback experiments is discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6671105     DOI: 10.1007/bf00998750

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


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Training and transfer of training effects in EMG biofeedback assisted muscular relaxation.

Authors:  A B Alexander; P D White; H M Wallace
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  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

Review 4.  Biofeedback efficacy studies: a critique of critiques.

Authors:  S S Steiner; W M Dince
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1981-09

5.  Skin temperature biofeedback and migraine headaches. A double-blind study.

Authors:  D Kewman; A H Roberts
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1980-09

6.  The double-blind in danger: untoward consequences of informed consent.

Authors:  K D Brownell; A J Stunkard
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 18.112

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Using statistical equivalence testing in clinical biofeedback research.

Authors:  J P Hatch
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1996-06

2.  Feedback delays and relaxation expectancies in EMG biofeedback.

Authors:  B R Monsma; A G Glaros; M A Lumley
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1988-06

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

Authors:  R L Hodes; E W Howland
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1986-09

4.  An incremental model to isolate specific effects of behavioral treatments in essential hypertension.

Authors:  M Goebel; G W Viol; C Orebaugh
Journal:  Biofeedback Self Regul       Date:  1993-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.