Cargando…
The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018)
Background: Sham-controlled neurofeedback (NFB) trials consistently find no separation on ADHD outcome measures leading many to conclude that NFB’s beneficial effects are due to placebo. Method: We deconstruct the NFB training methodology and findings of six sham-controlled trials that assessed for...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7783691/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30078340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054718790802 |
_version_ | 1783632160426557440 |
---|---|
author | Pigott, H. Edmund Cannon, Rex Trullinger, Mark |
author_facet | Pigott, H. Edmund Cannon, Rex Trullinger, Mark |
author_sort | Pigott, H. Edmund |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Sham-controlled neurofeedback (NFB) trials consistently find no separation on ADHD outcome measures leading many to conclude that NFB’s beneficial effects are due to placebo. Method: We deconstruct the NFB training methodology and findings of six sham-controlled trials that assessed for evidence of learning. Results: All six studies found no evidence NFB subjects learned to self-modulate the targeted electroencephalogram (EEG). Careful analyses revealed these studies’ training methodologies were antithetical to the established science of operant conditioning thereby preventing subjects from learning to self-modulate. These findings are in marked contrast to NFB studies whose methodology mirror the best practices of operant conditioning. Conclusion: The premise that NFB’s beneficial effects are due to placebo phenomenon is unproven as these studies compared two forms of false-feedback, not operant conditioning of the EEG. Because these studies are highly cited and considered the gold standard in scientific rigor, a reappraisal of the evidence is urgently needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7783691 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77836912021-01-21 The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) Pigott, H. Edmund Cannon, Rex Trullinger, Mark J Atten Disord Commentary Background: Sham-controlled neurofeedback (NFB) trials consistently find no separation on ADHD outcome measures leading many to conclude that NFB’s beneficial effects are due to placebo. Method: We deconstruct the NFB training methodology and findings of six sham-controlled trials that assessed for evidence of learning. Results: All six studies found no evidence NFB subjects learned to self-modulate the targeted electroencephalogram (EEG). Careful analyses revealed these studies’ training methodologies were antithetical to the established science of operant conditioning thereby preventing subjects from learning to self-modulate. These findings are in marked contrast to NFB studies whose methodology mirror the best practices of operant conditioning. Conclusion: The premise that NFB’s beneficial effects are due to placebo phenomenon is unproven as these studies compared two forms of false-feedback, not operant conditioning of the EEG. Because these studies are highly cited and considered the gold standard in scientific rigor, a reappraisal of the evidence is urgently needed. SAGE Publications 2018-08-06 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7783691/ /pubmed/30078340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054718790802 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Commentary Pigott, H. Edmund Cannon, Rex Trullinger, Mark The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title | The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title_full | The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title_fullStr | The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title_full_unstemmed | The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title_short | The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) |
title_sort | fallacy of sham-controlled neurofeedback trials: a reply to thibault and colleagues (2018) |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7783691/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30078340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054718790802 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pigotthedmund thefallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 AT cannonrex thefallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 AT trullingermark thefallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 AT pigotthedmund fallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 AT cannonrex fallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 AT trullingermark fallacyofshamcontrolledneurofeedbacktrialsareplytothibaultandcolleagues2018 |