http://www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/forums/f37/pushing-neurofeedback-into-mainstream-5418/

We’ve received 3 patents based on this approach. We also have a patent pending behavior shaping module integrated so that students can learn to self-regulate by learning to focus more. It’s far too difficult to explain in a short response like this.

We have an ongoing controlled study at Tufts Medical School, are beginning one at Harding University, and are starting one in a public school district next year. Data should be published in late 2009.

The reason we’ve survived and ruled this market internationally for 14 years is because our method makes sense, is founded in sound teaching practices that are thousands of years old and integrated them with feedback technology. That’s so radically different and refreshing that we are in more households, TBI hospitals, psychologist’s offices, MD’s offices, learning centers, and schools (over 450 districts in US alone) that no one in this industry comes close. Could we have done this if Play Attention didn’t work? Not likely. Furthermore, what we’ll introduce both technologically and educationally over 2008 will alter the future of this industry once again.

These forums are notorious for wrongly interpreting or describing Play Attention which is what occurred here. I only meant to correct that. One should be responsible or at least knowledgeable before making statements especially on a respected forum such as this.

What you say makes a lot of sense. Now, the questions then become, how exactly do you train cognitive skills, and how do you show the “cognitive and behavioral outcomes” from your product? We have not come across peer-reviewed published studies that we can evaluate and discuss in this blog. And we would love to, given the number of years your product has been in the market.
Thank you

One thing is to argue that neurofeedback may be an appropriate tool in specific cases where a clinician can suggest that intervention makes sense and the patient agrees to try, and another one to imply the tool deserves a wider, automatic “prescription”. For the later, you’d need many high-quality randomized controlled trials-the type that Dr. Rabiner was suggesting neurofeedback, at least in the case of attention deficits, has none.

Which doesn’t mean neurofeedback isn’t a valid option. It CAN be. Let me revisit  one of David’s sentences: “However, these studies do provide a solid basis for suggesting that if parents choose to pursue neurofeedback for their child, there is a reasonable chance that their child will benefit even though we can’t be sure that it is the specific EEG training that is responsible for the benefits.”

If neurofeedback practitioners need to go beyond this, they need to enlist some university-based researchers and conduct a good trial. Perhaps the military would be interested in funding such a study.

How much is enough?

Parents/ other users need to make their own decision on whether to use neurofeedback or not, as a tool in the toolkit, with its Pros and Cons. There is not enough clinical/ scientific evidence to warrant a wider, automatic “prescription”.

I don’t mind if you republish the comment.

Play Attention is not a full fledged neurofeedback machine like the ones used in studies. It only processes (IIRC) the alpha wave channel. EEG Neurofeedback machines like Brainmaster’s Atlantis system, Zengar Institute’s NeuroCare system, etc. manage up to 5 wave channels — alpha, beta, theta, delta and (sometimes) gamma. It also doesn’t perform QEEG mappings, so it is not on the same level as a treatment option as EEG neurofeedback as defined in the studies.

“Furthermore, the fact that neurofeedback has been around for so long, may make one question why no one attempts the type of study he proposes.” — Alvaro

~~~

“The most conclusive test of neurofeedback treatment would include random assignment and a control condition that closely matched the neurofeedback condition. For example, children could receive video game coaching from a supportive adult for the same time period. Or, even better, they could do exactly what children getting the neurofeedback were doing but not receive direct feedback on their EEG states.” — Dr. Rabiner

~~~

EEG neurofeedback is not a “treatment” in the classical sense. It is a training program that requires tailoring over time by the practitioner and active participation from the patient. It is not possible to simulate this effectively over time for a “blind” study, much less a double blind study.

But the larger answer as to why no one attempts the type of study he proposes is $$$:

“For a very promising treatment targeting such a
serious condition as epilepsy, the number of large-scale clinical trials of neurofeedback
training to date is disappointing. A likely reason for this state of affairs is that
neurofeedback research is a very time– and work-intensive enterprise that has
traditionally not received extensive research funding and has, for obvious reasons, not
been pursued by the pharmaceutical industry.”

http://sica.stanford.edu/events/brainwaves/FoundationsofNeurofeedback.pdf

As I mentioned previously, no company owns a patent on EEG neurofeedback — it’s a training process, not a drug or specific medical device. It is not economically justifiable for a for-profit company to sponsor the necessary research. There is no ROI. So, it’s up to non-profit groups/charities to sponsor this kind of research. While some have sponsored small studies recently (such as FACES at NYU), there hasn’t been and isn’t anything being done on the scale that appears to be necessary for the skeptics.

You raise many good points. And I am happy that neurofeedback helped your wife. Now, nothing that you have written, in my view, contradicts Dr. Rabiner’s conclusion. Furthermore, the fact that neurofeedback has been around for so long, may make one question why no one attempts the type of study he proposes.

In fact, in those same ratings you link to, one can see only one application reaches Levels 5, and it is not ADD/ ADHD. Which is basically what Dr. Rabiner is saying, with other words.

This is not about drugs vs. no drugs. Some non-drug-based approaches, such as cognitive therapy or forms of computer-based working memory training are starting to show efficacy as complement to drugs in well-designed trials. And it is not about biofeedback in general, which has clear research support for specific applications.

You may know that companies like Play Attention sell neurofeedback machines direct to parents, for use with kids who have ADD/ ADHD. Have you seen research supporting an investment of more than $1,000 in such programs? They may work, and parents are free to spend their money as they want– but they deserve to know that it is not proven.