Jump to content

Talk:Biofeedback

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrandenburg103.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eviarengo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One sided

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement for biofeedback. Seems a bit one sided, especially when looking at the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.217.212 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, nearly three years later, this article still reads like an advertisement for biofeedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.120 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this article is simply inacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.211.64 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some work. It starts ok, then goes drastically downhill at the second EEG heading, where it turns into a list of researchers and their findings.
I'm busy, and not an expert in this area, but it needs to be rewritten for a general audience. My suggestions would be to drastically cut the modalities section to a sentence or paragraph on each modality, then cut the Applications section drastically; firstly by removing EEG and other modalities from it and then by giving a summary of each application and the effectiveness in each area. History should probably go to the beginning, with the timeline either removed or left to the end. organizations and certification needs to be a lot shorter.
I agree with previous commenters, this sounds like a (bad) advertorial at the moment, and even if you're a die hard supporter of biofeedback, you should change this article to some neutral and easy to read.Bendav (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult topic because it is so huge in scope. Any one person may only be interested in one of the applications of biofeedback. Suspect that each section has been individually written by different editors. There likely has been no editing done on the article as a whole I think. Lesion (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did anyone manage to edit this article about biofeedback and skip mentioning Barbara B. Brown??? Come on, now!

[edit]

Considering that Barbara Brown is/was a major figure in biofeedback and there is a Wikipedia entry for her, how the heck did you people miss this?? The entry is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brown_%28scientist%29

Let me quote part of it here: "Brown was the biofeedback field's most prolific writer and most successful popularizer. ... Dr. Brown created and popularized the word 'biofeedback.' She did her ground-breaking research when she was Chief of Experiential Physiology Research at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Sepulveda, California. ... Brown was co-founder and first president (1969-1970) of the Biofeedback Research Society, which evolved into the Biofeedback Society of America and then into the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback."

This entry and the timeline included in it specifically mention the Biofeedback Research Society (BRS) but somehow fail to mention that Brown was co-founder of it. There's no good reason for that. Clearly, she was a well known figure in psychology and psychopharmacology and a major figure within the biofeedback profession. Moreover, she published half a dozen popular books on the subject in addition to two books for professional practitioners, The Biofeedback Syllabus: A Handbook for the Psychophysiologic Study of Biofeedback (1975) and The Alpha Syllabus: A handbook of human EEG alpha activity (1974). Failure to mention her here is inexcusable! This Wikipedia entry must be fixed immediately so that Brown is included prominently within the text. Mrtraska (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtraska (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request mediation on the replacement of The Task Force definition of biofeedback

[edit]

I request mediation on the replacement of the Task Force definition of biofeedback with one based on a passage from an Abnormal Psychology text. What X says matters, when X is a panel of experts from three international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations whose work was endorsed by all three Boards of Directors. Wikipedia's readers deserve an authoritative definition instead of a personal one.Fredricshaffer (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is jumping the gun at this point. This is more a case of bold, revert, discuss. I'll revisit the page and see what I think. See dispute resolution for more. Since there's only two of us, a third opinion could work, or the slightly more formal request for comment is also an option. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be using Schwartz & Andrasik's book as a source yet - if it's not published, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we shouldn't cite things yet. Is there another source for the task force definition? I can't find the task force itself on google, and I'd rather not use organization front pages.
Also, the revert removed a set of high-quality sources about medical claims (see WP:MEDRS), used two large images, one of which created considerable whitespace, had a lot of very specific claims that shouldn't really be in the lead (which should summarize the key points in general language) and there's a lot of general manual of style issues to be addressed. I'll try to get to them alter. Key among them - the page name shouldn't be repeated a lot, there's not many multi-level headings, there's too much capitalization and bolding, and far, far too much X said Y. We should be stating things in summary style rather than consistently saying who claimed what. If it's uncontroversial, we should simply say it rather than saying who said it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Schwartz and Andrasik text cannot be used as a reference until it reaches the shelves, Wikipedia can source the Task Force definition of biofeedback by linking to the official websites of AAPB, BCIA, and ISNR. I would be pleased to request a comment to help settle this issue.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricshaffer (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Definition of Biofeedback

[edit]

I would like the Task Force on Nomenclature's definition restored in place of a contributor's personal definition that was sourced from an Abnormal Psychology text. The official websites of the three main international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations, AAPB, BCIA, and ISNR have published this consensus definition that their Boards approved. —Fredricshaffer (via posting script) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this seems like overkill (on top of being malformed, I don't think your signature is supposed to show up). I don't mind the TFN's definition being used, if it can be properly sourced. However, what's wrong with the Abnormal Psych text, considering it is one of the sources recommended in Wikipedia:MEDRS#Books? In particular, the google books link allows the reader to verify the intformation themselves. Is there anything important missing from the abnormal psych definition? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this resolved? If not please give links to the different definitions. MiRroar (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Effort At Compromise

[edit]

Since WLU was concerned about citing works in press, I referenced the Task Force on Nomenclature's definition to the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) official website. Their publication of this definition makes it part of the public record. The BCIA and ISNR websites published the same definition that their Boards also approved. For the first time, the three major international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations jointly defined the term biofeedback to defend against the commercial misuse of the term.

Since the definition is part of the public record and the product of experts in the field, I would welcome editors who disagree with this definition to leave it in place and start a "Criticisms of the Task Force on Nomenclature's Definition" underneath.Fredricshaffer (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be a direct quote, so I'll summarize it, but I'll summarize it, add in a citation template and format the lead. The lead needs to be greatly expanded by the way - it should summarize all the main points of the article, not just a definition and some effectiveness stuff. I'd rather the source be somewhere other than the AAPB frontpage, but it'll work until a better one becomes available. Please feel free to modify any wording changes I make to the definition if I miss anything major, but we shouldn't be using direct quotes if possible. Please also refer to the links and guidelines I cite in my edit summaries and on the talk page - I'm not making idle changes, we have a guide to layout, a maual of style and a variety of citation tools that'll make the page both more professional looking and make it easier for readers to verify or research the text itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Achieved

[edit]

I'm pleased with the revisions and value collaborative solutions.Fredricshaffer (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I reverted vandalism in the Research section written by an anonymous editor who does not have a talk page.Fredricshaffer (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance vs. Conductance

[edit]

This article talks about skin conductance and skin resistance as though they are different things. Conductance is just the reciprocal of resistance. 151.200.47.86 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_%28unit%29 , just one example.212.85.89.247 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

the criticism section is just selling biofeedback as a medical tool and reads like a pro biofeedback pamphlet encouraging people to "educate" healthcare professionals, lets try to keep it NPOV 114.76.41.165 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is still the case. it's a gross misrepresentation of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.211.64 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


RE

"Another criticism of biofeedback lay in some members of the energy medicine community claiming biofeedback status, and providing treatment for a wide variety of illnesses such as cancer, with no efficacy demonstrated" needs better support than the reference you provided and the phrasing is unclear, what does "claiming biofeedback status" mean? .. Just noticed this. There are numerous groups claiming to practice Biofeedback, but in reality are sham pseudoscience with major news illustrating this. I think it should be put somewhere in the wiki, as it is harmful to everyone interested in the science of biofeedback.. ie.. ps Could someone put this somewhere appropriate in the page. I am not a skilled wiki writer, or I would. Here are a couple links.. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-one-mans-invention-is-part-of-a-growing-worldwide-scam-that-snares-the-desperately-ill/ and https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1353347256 These are the main companies selling this equipment: http://www.quantumbiofeedbackbeverlyhills.com/ http://www.quantum-biofeedback.net/ http://www.quantum-life.com/ http://www.thequantumalliance.com/eu/biofeedback/ http://www.planetbioscan.com/quantum.html http://mindbodybalancing.com/the-scio/quantum-biofeedback-features


Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenru (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article picture

[edit]

Is there any reason why the first image on this article is in Polish? It seems rather odd and out of place, is there not another suitable image that could be used? --Winwardo (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this concern. This is the english language wikipedia; the image should be replaced. Tom (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Majormodalities.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Majormodalities.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Majormodalities.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Biofeedback headband

[edit]

I totally agree with Lesion. That doesn't make any sense, otherwise you'd want to give pages to all aspects of technique and equipment, and the headbands are a minor aspect of it all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenru (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real need for a separate page, can be discussed along with bruxism and TMD section in main biofeedback page. Merge would be a good opportunity to remove some of the issues in the biofeedback headband page too Lesion (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just as it is standard to have a Wikipedia article for each distinct car model, it makes sense to have distinct articles for each piece of medical equipment. Lumping the biofeedback headband into the general biofeedback article would be like lumping the Lunar Rover article into a general article on cars. The biofeedback headband is distinct in many ways from all other biofeedback equipment. It would be useful to make the distinctions more clear in this article. RagingDog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, the real reason that it was a separate article is so there was a "quiet corner" for advertising and non neutral point of view content. Having encyclopedic separate articles is easier said than done. It is an issue of finding appropriate sources. Technically we should be using only evidence that specifically discusses the headband instead of other types of biofeedback (I think this is called "tabletop biofeedback" in the article) for a separate headband page. Consider that we can't use primary sources, and systematic reviews will tend to lump the headband in with other types of biofeedback. Most of the sources I added shouldn't be there for this reason. Furthermore, by having separate articles, we are suggesting that the biofeedback headband is possibly has different effects than other types of biofeedback, and we definitely should not do that without a source. Lesion (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved following comment from (talk:Biofeedback headband) Lesion (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references discuss biofeedback generally, and I am not sure if this was with a headband or some other type of biofeedback. I honestly think that this whole content could be better presented as a subsection of the main biofeedback page. Lesion (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If by your statement "Most of the references discuss biofeedback generally", you are meaning to assert that most of the references *only* discuss biofeedback generally, I don't believe that to be correct. It is standard practice to list the equipment used in a study. If you are reading a literature review, you may have to go back to the original article being referenced. That is easy to do. There have been only two brands of biofeedback headbands produced(The BruxCare/GrindAlert (the original American rand which was later renamed SleepGuard) and GrindCare (manufactured in the Netherlands)). Both devices were designed to provide biofeedback signals that could be responded to in sleep, rather than a signal that would wake a person up. As far as I know, the American biofeedback headband was the first biofeedback device specifically designed to e responded to without waking up. The other unit followed suit about five years later. RagingDog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The references we are currently using (meta analyses and systematic reviews) for biofeedback headband make conclusions about biofeedback generally. Whilst it is common practice for studies presenting new evidence to draw a distinction in the type of biofeedback they are using, these are primary sources and we can't use them on Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS). Lesion (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Given the lack of appropriate sources for the Biofeedback headband and the overlap. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll merge these tomorrow. Lesion (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More footnotes tag

[edit]

Although this article is generally well sourced, one section has five paragraphs that are not sourced, so I placed the more footnotes tag on that section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed ayaxia bullet; appears to be PR

[edit]

please see WP:PROMOTION. here's the removed bullet:

  • There is an app called Ayaxia that is being developed to measure and analyze users' emotions through biofeedback. The app helps users reach their peak performance during certain activities. Ayaxia acquires users biofeedback and process/interface this data with their skills, goals, and anxiety/boredom level. The app is based on a previous reaserch done by Nathalie Peira, Learned Cardiac Control with Heart Rate Biofeedback Transfers to Emotional Reactions , and the study of Flow (psychylogy) by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi. The app will interface with a wrist-worn watch by Oxitone, a medical-grade pulse oximeter which eliminates the need for an ‘crocodile clip’ fingertip sensor and thereby continuously measuring oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate and respiratory rate wirelessly and entirely at the wrist.

A discussion is taking place

[edit]

Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback, where a discussion is taking place about the deletion of a draft that is a copy and paste of a section here and thus appears to be a POV Fork from this article. Fiddle Faddle 11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure

[edit]

There seemed to be nothing there about pressure. I've added some brief text,
Pressure can be monitored as a patient performs exercises while resting against an air-filled cushion.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). This is pertinent to physiotherapy. Alternatively, the patient may actively grip or press against an air-filled cushion of custom shape.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
and hope others can improve by building on and amending it. I have added two references that happen to be to consumer products, which were chosen because they were representative references I could find online. You are welcome to replace them with some more neutral academic-style references (if you can find them) due to dislike for the type of references used! —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Heartmath Institute

[edit]

The claims made by the Heartmath Institute read like pseudoscience. Do we have any peer-reviewed evidence to support them? MrEarlGray (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2023

[edit]

Adding a note that I've mentioned this article at WP:FTN. Sunrise (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biofeedback&oldid=1197986565"