Talk:Neurofeedback

Removed paragraph about endorphins

I removed a paragraph that tried to make the case that although there is no known scientific explanation for the perceived effectiveness of neurofeedback therapies, no one understood how endorphins worked at one time either. Off topic and illogical. Highnumber (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I must Correct my self I undid your change under the misrepresentation that you had added the section not removed it.Donhoraldo (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed section "Evidence based"

The section was reporting on one meta analysis of only 15 studies, all but 2 with a N less than 100. All with tiny effects. A third of the studies, including one studies composing nearly half of the patients of the entire meta analysis uncontrolled, that's 718 out of a N of 1194 with no controls on a completely subjective test. All we can say from this is the analysis is completely worthless and thus the section talking about the meta analysis is completely worthless.Donhoraldo (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does neurofeedback have to be EEG?

The article defines neurofeedback as: "Neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback that uses electroencephalography to provide a signal that can be used by a person to receive feedback about brain activity." Though, similar things can be done using fNIR and other methods, and a quick google search shows that the term seems to be used here as well. Øln (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Questionable quality and neutrality

I added Advert and verification tags to this article (with IP address, sorry). I came to this article to study the efficacy of the method (questioned here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html). I'm not an expert in EEG-biofeedback as such, but am familiar with usage of EEG and other physiological signals in psychological research. My understanding is that neurofeedback methods are not a very central component in mainstream psychology or therapy, but this doesn't of course in any way mean they don't work. However, given this background I was surprised that the efficacy isn't discussed much here. Also I find the structure a bit odd and the article stresses too much some in my opinion quite trivial aspects such as over detailed sections about certification and "Neurofeedback in practice". Also many of the references are to specialized biofeedback journals and a bit questionable websites with vested interests. --Jampekka (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This article illustrates one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses: articles about fringe topics that not many editors are interested in are easily dominated by enthusiasts, who make it more trouble to clean them up than it is worth. This article really ought to be trimmed of a lot of unsupportable statements. And you should certainly not use it to study the efficacy of the method -- more accurately you shouldn't believe anything it says. Looie496 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I indeed ran into the same problem over at Great Pacific Garbage Patch. But its good for me to see it here too, makes me more aware of the problem. I also second the skepticism for overly enthusiastic claims. Jacealcard (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've killed the "sites of interest" and "research and development" parts of the external links section. WP:NOT a link farm. I also cleared a the crap and dead links from the only remaining section. Link farms are usually another sign of the type of problems you describe; nobody is paying attention, so the article acquires more and more links over time --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good! I'll try to help out if trouble arises. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality

Well this article needs to be improved a bit, sadly I'm more or less out of time for this. Here are a few points why, in my humble opinion, this is necessary:

1. The article is mainly about EEG-Neurofeedback, which is fine with me as fMRI-NFB is relatively new and it is really hard to find someone with this technology. However, we should clearly distinguish between EEG-NFB and fMRI-NFB which is not always the case in this article. A few examples

• In the beginning NFB should not be called EEG-Biofeedback (even it is done in some parts of the article), simply because this is not 100% correct, because of fMRI-Neurofeedback. We should write that there are 2 types of NFB, one is called fMRI-NFB (experimental status and not commonly available) and the other EEG-NFB or EEG-BFB (which is “commonly” available and not so experimental anymore).
• If this article would clearly distinguish between EEG-NFB and fMRI-NFB then there would be no sentence like “Sensors are placed on the scalp to measure activity, with measurements displayed using video displays or sound.” because this is not the case for fMRI-NFB. Just read a bit in the fMRI article and you know why. I would write something like “In EEG-NFB sensors are placed on the scalp to measure (brainwave) activity, with measurements displayed using video displays or sound.”. I personally believe that there should be a short section about fMRI-NFB ( pro (“deeper” in the brain) and cons(expensive and not for everyone) of the technology (measures something different than EEG-NFB) vs EEG(“inexpensive”, but only the brainwaves on the “surface”))and then we should write that for the rest of the article we are always talking about EEG-NFB or we always have to write EEG-NFB. That would make it easier for everyone to understand.

2. We should only use EEG-Biofeedback in the beginning of the article an then EEG-NFB for clarity (and because the article is called Neurofeedback...)

3. “Definition” should not include something like the effectiveness of the therapy, rather what it is or not, what types there are and their differences and how it works. Maybe that's already to much...

4. The same for the “Training process”, it should not include something about the effectiveness...

5. We should split the history section from the application section! I would suggest a list with the efficacy level or different sections with the research or both.

6. Maybe we should have a brainwave section (alpha, beta, theta SMR and so on) Thats it for now. Best Regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A brainwave section seems unnecessary; this is covered at EEG#Comparison_table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.57.188 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the ADHD section the last sentences:

   "Further research on the benefits of neurofeedback for ADHD is warranted given this history of mixed results. Future research on
   this treatment needs to employ appropriate sham neurofeedback or other attention-placebo control groups, double-blinded procedures
   and measures of ADHD collected both in school and at home to better evaluate the efficacy of this treatment for ADHD." 

Either needs a reference, should be removed as OR, or perhaps a new section can be added to the article describing current research topics in Neurofeedback science and application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.58.11 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this page is terrible

This page is full of psuedoscientific mush. Why have so many "citation needed" tags been tolerated? If you don't believe me about the questionable nature of it, just google neurofeedback quackery. Here's good summary by a neurologist: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neurofeedback-and-the-need-for-science-based-medicine/

A lot of the "sources" on the page are from advocacy groups like Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, which should not be considered unbiased.

Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to do some cleanup on the article, I'll back you up if you run into difficulties. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already started. I've removed many of the undocumented claims and added the beginning of a criticism section with proper documentation. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi I'm not up on EEG, but there are medical devices with 510K clearances from the FDA that are in use. I was wondering if more discussion on the the instruments would be helpful. I have attached one clearance for your review. [1] Let me know what you think. Definitely an interesting topic.Thisandthem (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the document just regarding a product's safety? Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a clearance from the FDA which gives approval for use as a safe Medical Device.Thisandthem (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I mean. The document states that the device is safe, but it has no content regarding efficacy (unless I missed something). Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs more recent information

"COMMENT: The last reference above is from 2000. Biofeedback technology has changed significantly, and the quality of research has improved relative to the 1990s timeframe. The title of the peer-reviewed [?] journal and sponsoring organization offers no re-assurance in terms of bias." This comment was made by editor 71.105.89.231 in the criticism section. (And it's me who moved this comment to the talk page. Lova Falk talk 08:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi 71.105.89.231! You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this subject, so please, be bold and add or rewrite this section, using reliable sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lova - thanks for the encouragement. My background is mathematics/engineering, although psychology and neurophysiology are areas of great interest to me. I'm investigating the possibility of getting training in neurofeedback and/or biofeedback so I can work with my wife, a psychiatrist, in her practice. I like the quality of comments among the contributors to this page and appreciate the light/humble tone you provide given the tentative and tenuous nature of knowledge - especially involving the brain/mind. I'll contribute when/if possible. Best regards, Jeff Daniels [jsd1415 >at< hotmail.com] 71.105.89.231 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff, I'm looking forward to your edits! Have you considered [an account]? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved APA "Reference"

Moved text:

Extended content
These criticisms; however, are now moot as research continues to confirm that neurofeedback is an efficacious treatment intervention. In October 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognized that the scientific literature on biofeedback (including neurofeedback) provides "Level 1, Best Support" as an evidence-based child and adolescent psychosocial intervention.

Where to start... First of all, the PDF from the AAP references "biofeedback", not "neurofeedback". They are related, but not the same. Secondly, this is basically a quick reference chart for pediatricians on potential therapy. It does not in any way discuss scientific literature or studies. There's a good chance that if the AAP put this out, they have some other documentation on their website, but this is not really evidence. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To summarize, the statement "these criticisms... are now moot" isn't even remotely born out by the reference. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Had those who removed this section bothered to check, the APA referenced DOES INCLUDE neurofeedback. This can be verified by contacting PracticeWise that compiles the Evidence-based practices list for the APA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.194.86 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the PDF from the reference right now ([2]). It's only one page, so there's not much to read. I've also searched for "neuro" to make sure I'm not missing anything. Can you point out where in the document neurofeedback is referenced? I can't find a single thing. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a list, from PracticeWise, the agency that creates the list for the APP. They gave some very specific and recent examples of the studies that were used. I will post those later. In addition, you can contact PracticeWise and they will confirm those references. FYI, these references include:

Beauregard, M., & Levesque, J. (2006). Functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the effects of neurofeedback training on neural bases of selective attention and response inhibition in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Applied Psychology and Biofeedback, 31, 3-20.

Gevensleben, H., Holl, B., Albrecht, B., Vogel, C., Schlamp, D., et al. (2009). Is neurofeedback an efficacious treatment for ADHD?: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 780-789.

Levesque, J., Beauregard, M., & Mensour, B. (2006). Effect of neurofeedback training on the neural substrates of selective attention in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience Letters, 394, 216-221.

In addition, the criticisms most certainly are moot - one is merely a poorly written article found on the Internet and the other only provides a link to an abstract. The actual literature review is not available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.194.86 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section is not for debate. It is for citing examples of experts in related fields criticizing Neurofeedback. Items supporting Neurofeedback should be placed elsewhere in the article unless they are specific rebuttals to criticism. For example, if Dr. Smith wrote an article saying that Neurofeedback was bunk, and Dr. Jones wrote an article saying that Dr. Smith was wrong because of x, y, and z, then both would belong in the criticism section. Simply putting in a reference that you (as an editor) feel proves that some criticism is wrong is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling.M.Archer (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is now apparent that you are injecting your personal bias by removing valid responses to the fallacious criticisms of neurofeedback. First, you cherry-picked the elevation of neurofeedback to the "Level 1: Best Practices" as an evidenced-based psycho-social intervention because you failed to find out what they based their decision on, and now you promote two very dated pseudo-scientific web site claims about neurofeedback, written by some of the same authors while ignoring the extant (and genuine) scientific literature on the topic. Just because you have a personal bias against neurofeedback and promote your biases via questionable sources does not give you the right to remove evidence that shows those sources are clearly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.194.86 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He is not, he is following Wikipedia Guidelines. One of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia is the NPOV, you know what is not neutral? The Truth. This Article lacks a Criticism Section and it is not to us to evaluate the logical soundness of the criticism, but for it to be properly referenced so the reader can decide. PuercoPop (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New section

As a part of a university course dedicated to expanding Wikipedia articles related to psychology, I've added a section discussing the possible applications of neurofeedback in areas outside of medicine such as in sports and the performing arts. Any feedback would be much appreciated as I'm still relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles.StudentPSYche (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally dubious about those applications, but your contribution is very well written -- far better than most student contributions that I've seen. The only thing that needs fixing is the handling of repeated refs. When you reuse a citation, you don't have to enter all the information again. Instead, the first time you use it, give it a "name", such as <ref name=Hammond>. Then the next time you want to cite the same source, you can just use <ref name=Hammond/> and nothing more (notice the / after the name; this indicates that the contents of the reference are specified somewhere else). I could fix this for you but it's a better learning experience if you do it yourself. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've changed the format of the reused citations as you suggested. I appreciate the tip as I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. As to the validity of the claims, there really isn't a whole lot of research yet on non-medical applications of neurofeedback outside of sports. However, the literature I reviewed in regards to applications in sports seemed more robust and fairly promising. Of course, this is still a topic that needs to be studied at greater length, however, I thought it was worth mentioning if only to highlight the fact that the applications of neurofeedback need not be solely restricted to medical purposes.StudentPSYche (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Neurofeedback in practice

I move here a the section on how a session goes: it is completely unreferenced, quite "how to" manual, and also probably site specific and not generalizable. Not really encyclopedic. I move it here in case it serves to somebody to improve it and re-insert it (provided he finds suitable refs. --Garrondo (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Text moved

A common professional neurofeedback therapy session today goes as follows:

1. In an intake of about 90 minutes the patient will get a questionnaire and a first EEG reading. The questionnaire specifies the complaints and also helps to indicate if the referral to a specialist might be called for. In some cases but not all a full EEG will be recorded.
2. If a full EEG is called for, the EEG recording is typically done on 19 - 21 sites on the scalp. It results in a brainmap ("quantitative EEG"). This is a series of maps (for each frequency one) where for each measured spot the average level of activity is shown. The brainmap is compared to a database to determine spots of over- and under activity compared to the average people of the patient's age and sex. There are several commercial providers of such databases.
3. The actual session itself involves placing sensors on the head. The feedback may involve, for example, a simple light or tone or game that will move and play when certain brain activity is detected by the system. For other brain activity the rewarding tone, or light or game is taken away.
4. A typical course of sessions takes 20 to 40 visits. At the beginning of each session the patient reports the course of his complaints and also mentions other mental effects. On the basis of this report the therapy may be adjusted. In some cases a patient is allowed to take a feedback machine home and have most - but not all - sessions there.

Recent Research

It seems to me that there is little on this page about the more recent research being done with neurofeedback. Also, why no mention of the trials the military is doing with soldiers with PTSD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.86.101 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, what is this definition?

I don't understand how this sentence is placed in definition:

  "Some feel that the most accurate form of neurofeedback is the one guided by qEEG,
   that is usually used in clinical settings. But this approach, although being helpful,
   is being seen by many as more using a linear science that is not in tune with modern,
   non-linear physics."

Also: quotes? I'm pretty sure some scientific research groups don't spend too much thoughts on NFB, because they prefer other methods. Nonetheless their opinion shouldn't be placed within a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.247.92 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional source: Lofthouse et al.

• Lofthouse, Nicholas; Arnold, L. Eugene; Hersch, Sarah; Hurt, Elizabeth; DeBeus, Roger (July 2012). "A Review of Neurofeedback Treatment for Pediatric ADHD". Journal of Attention Disorders. 16 (5): 351–372. doi:10.1177/1087054711427530.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this page warrants a complete rewrite

I'll keep this short because it's currently 3:00 am, but this page has several major issues, so many that it may be better to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.

- Other than in the history section, it fails to differentiate between the efficacy of different neurofeedback protocols. This would be like a page about pharmocology failing to differentiate between different classes of drugs. To say that either neurofeedback "works" or "doesn't work" would be analogous to saying that drugs, as a whole, either "work" or "don't work".

- It seems to cherry-pick its sources in certain places.

- Other than in the history section, it fails to differentiate between the different stages of the development of neurofeedback. Any study that was done in a previous developmental stage should be either removed or shown that the same protocols are still being used today.

- There is a comical discrepancy between the medium size section entirely about the efficacy of neurofeedback for ADHD and the small sliver of text that to paraphrase, says "oh, and by the way, here's a generic list of stuff that psychiatrists try to fix."

- The article seems to be slightly biased in a few subtle ways, like an opinionated "non-believer" of neurofeedback swept through the article and gave his/her two cents via adding sources, taking away parts, etc.

- The page gives no information into the mechanistic ways that it works, i.e. bipolar montage, frequency pulling, amplitude manipulation, infra-low frequencies, operant conditioning or the lack there-of, etc.

I am not an expert, but I know enough about the field to pick out these major flaws. I will help in rewriting it, but in my opinion it needs to be done by an expert in the field who is

(a): familiar with the current empirical literature on the subject (b): has an eclectic knowledge of the many different protocols (c): is unbiased and can potentially write a section about the criticism of neurofeedback

EDIT: the validity of sources also seems to be controversial since a good chunk of the research is coming from either the developers themselves or from various non-academic associations that have ties with people who are invested in the field. I would personally question whether this bias is enough to invalidate their research on the basis that it is not enough bias to influence the results of the study. It is also possible to question the validity of the "non-biased" sources because they are either too old, too sweeping, or that they may have flaws inherent to not having the expertise of someone active in the field.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8200:5A9E:70D3:7BCF:1CDD:99D3 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC) 

Biofeedback via collective conscience

Biofeedback techniques that have proven effective on the individual can be easily quantified while proof of alterations to the collective cerebral functionality may not be so readily available. Mikrochik (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

So I found obvious plagiarism in the very first paragraph of this entry: the two sentences prior to the first footnote are lifted directly from the abstract to the cited article. Clearly this article was not written by experts and should be taken down. Any article dealing with a therapy or other medical intervention should be thoroughly vetted by experts--otherwise it's dangerous.

Future of article

I've tried to clean up the article the best I could the last few weeks: Improving citations, adding more accurate criticism, and reformatting. However, I mostly expanded existing sections. This article is missing three key areas which would greatly improve the scope:

1 - A discussion of the mechanisms of neurofeedback. There is scientific consensus as to how it is meant to operate, just not to the degree it is successful in all cases. Neuroplasticity could also be joined with this section.

2 - A section dedicated to procedure as well as an overview of the different protocol types and their use.

3 - An adverse effects section. Although neurofeedback is regarded as safe - headaches, triggering of seizure or migraine, or other effects from use of ISF deserve recognition.

See: Article on TMS for a better written example of another modern noninvasive brain procedure

Article overhaul of 2022-12-15

Long story short: I overhauled most of the article. I figured it's easiest to just rip the bandaid off and get it over with. Bullet points of the change follow. If you have any notes or issues the changes, you can leave them here for discussion. Apologies for keeping this short, but I'm utterly exhausted after having done this.

Changes: diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127567323&oldid=1125547701&title=Neurofeedback&diffmode=visual

• Replaced overly positive claims with statements more closely reflecting the content of their citations
• Toned done statements about the effectiveness of treatment, and noted their caveats
• Removed first hand sources notice, as many citations are second hand sources
• Limited Applications section to non-medical applications only and absorbed medical applications into Criticisms section
• Purged Further reading of anything that seemed overtly sketchy
• Added notice about notability to Certification section. I'm not opposed to having it in the article, but I'm not convinced its particularly needed.
• minor reordering
• minor spelling

SkSlick (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This was less of an "overhaul" and more of a decimation with some poorly researched citations sprinkled throughout. While the original article was perhaps overly positive, it appears any statement alongside neurofeedback's utility has now been met with notes from you refuting any possible efficacy. The exact extent of beneficial clinical use of neurofeedback is still finding its place in psychiatry and psychotherapy, but idea that it has no understood benefit in any case is simply not an accurate reflection of the most recent state of the literature. The changes made paint neurofeedback in as much an erroneously negative light as the original article was erroneously positive. I've added an original research disclaimer at the top to reflect your changes.

Frankly, it looks like the article should be completely re-written as the current state paints the technology as akin to homeopathy. I'll try and fix up the article and restore it to a neutral reflection of the SOTA if I get some time in the next few weeks. For any further changes to the article, I would recommend a thorough reading of the specific use cases of the technology. These should be enumerated clearly in a clinical usage section with the criticism section fleshed out and arguments presented clearly. In addition, a section on the neurofeedback mechanism and common protocols should be added. The summary also now needs to be cleaned up and expanded with bias removed. 2601:14D:8500:6BF0:E1A9:21EE:C1E6:3B0B (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. I started making up my thoughts on re-writing (and thus restructuring) the article as well. I think a new article will be able to reflect the current state of Neurofeedback in a much more neutral way. NF-LF (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Complete Reset - 2023-04-28

I wrote a complete new article. The topic now focuses on Neurofeedback and also distinguishes in an organized manner the different types of neurofeedback.

Before, the article was telling more about organizations and certifications than neurofeedback itself. These might be interesting topics, but do not intrinsically have to do with neurofeedback but rather with the economics and private interests of associations.

A discussion and critique section is relevant as there are many open and even unaddressed questions and challenges in the field. NF-LF (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Abject lack of references

As other editors have pointed out before, this article is of low quality. I'm especially concerned about the egregious lack of references. Not only is this not a science-based treatment, so we are essentially talking about a quack therapy, but there aren't even enough references to support all the various claims made about it on this page. For that reason, I'd like to go ahead and start pruning a lot of the unreferenced content. If you have references that you would like to add, please do so, otherwise, any unreferenced content is fair game for removal, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the article used to be moderately well referenced, but the rewrite of 2023-04-28 got rid of basically all of it. The article used to be a lot more critical of its efficacy as well (from revision 2022-12-15 'till revision 2023-04-28).

Full disclosure: I authored the revision of 2022-12-15, so it's possible my opinion on the revision of 2023-04-28 may not be the most impartial.

There was some input (Talk:Neurofeedback#Article overhaul of 2022-12-15) on the revision of 2022-12-15 that regarded it as hyper-critical and found it unwarranted how it attributed most or all effects of the treatment to placebo effect. In my opinion it would have been warranted to fully revert the revision of 2023-04-28 based on its lack of references and criticality, but I never planned on maintaining this article and now it's rather late to have that discussion. I'm gonna hold off on reverting or reviving content, as I don't want this to devolve in an edit war, but if somebody else thinks doing so would be better, be my guest. SkSlick (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Neurofeedback is certainly not quackery. It is best should considered an emerging and still-developing treatment option. It has a specific use case, but being dismissive is not helpful. See here for a recent article (2021) which discusses the behavioral and neurological effects of the treatment as well as the limitations. To quote from the authors: "Overall, there is thus ample reproducible evidence that neurofeedback can trigger behavioural and cortical plasticity changes that result in improved cognitive functions in both impaired and healthy participants (non-exhaustive summary in Table 1). However, it would be misleading to think that the benefit of neurofeedback protocols has reached consensus. Several limits of this type of protocols deserve attention and experimental consideration. Most of these issues are not specific to neurofeedback, but are relevant to all cognitive training approaches."

This page should be edited and expanded, with healthy scientific disclaimers throughout, but under no circumstances reverted to the changes made on 2022-12-15. That version was a truly abysmal summarization of the literature. The current version is sparse and perhaps not the academic quality which would make for a good article, but it is a much better start than what we've seen previously. 2600:4040:2A8A:AA00:B87B:B178:392B:9CB2 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)