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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pigott, H. Edmund, Cannon, Rex, Trullinger, Mark
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