Talk:Biofeedback
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guidelineWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typicallyreview articles. Here are links topossibly useful sources of information aboutBiofeedback.
|
Archives |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between16 August 2021 and9 December 2021. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Jbrandenburg103.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Eviarengo.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement for biofeedback. Seems a bit one sided, especially when looking at the criticism section.—Precedingunsigned comment added by130.179.217.212 (talk)23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, nearly three years later, this article still reads like an advertisement for biofeedback.— Precedingunsigned comment added by199.107.16.120 (talk)17:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this article is simply inacceptable.— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.219.211.64 (talk)06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) andThe 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)—Precedingunsigned comment added byMrtraska (talk •contribs)23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.````—Precedingunsigned comment added byFredricshaffer (talk •contribs)17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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(viaposting script)17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since WLU was concerned about citing worksin 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]
I'm pleased with the revisions and value collaborative solutions.Fredricshaffer (talk)19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_%28unit%29 , just one example.212.85.89.247 (talk)23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 NPOV114.76.41.165 (talk)04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this is still the case. it's a gross misrepresentation of reality.— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.219.211.64 (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/ andhttps://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.htmlhttp://mindbodybalancing.com/the-scio/quantum-biofeedback-features
Thanks in advance,— Precedingunsigned comment added byDavenru (talk •contribs)23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
 | An image used in this article,File:Majormodalities.jpg, has been nominated for deletion atWikimedia Commons in the following category:Deletion requests February 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevantimage 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] |
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...— Precedingunsigned comment added byDavenru (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 tooLesion (talk)12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Given the lack of appropriate sources for theBiofeedback headband and the overlap. - -MrBill3 (talk)00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
please seeWP:PROMOTION. here's the removed bullet:
Please give your opinion atWikipedia: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.FiddleFaddle11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 thehelp page). This is pertinent tophysiotherapy. 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 thehelp 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]
The claims made by theHeartmath Institute read like pseudoscience. Do we have any peer-reviewed evidence to support them?MrEarlGray (talk)14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a note that I've mentioned this article atWP:FTN.Sunrise(talk)21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Efficacy section seems to take almost all of its citations from the Task Force formed by the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback and the International Society for Neurofeedback and Research, and all Task Force citations are in the AAPB's own journal. While it's good to have citations from biofeedback organizations, they don't present what the broader neurology or psychology fields have to say about the effectivity of the treatment. The citations are also white papers from a task force rather than meta-studies that were blindly peer-reviewed.
It makes the section have poor credibility (no peer reviewed sources) and seem one-sided, whether or not broader neurology and psychology agrees with biofeedback's efficacy.Carrolliniandodo (talk)17:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
