Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures
This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the sig...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 1986-09, Vol.11 (3), p.207-220 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 220 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 207 |
| container_title | Biofeedback and Self-Regulation |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | HODES, R. L HOWLAND, E. W |
| description | This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the signal increased with deviations in any direction from baseline EMG levels (Stabilization). The results supported the use of Ocular but not Stabilization feedback as a control procedure in frontalis EMG biofeedback studies. Ocular feedback did not produce reductions in frontalis EMG but did lead to changes in subjective measures of nonspecific treatment effects that were at least comparable to those obtained with Veridical feedback. Stabilization subjects produced small but significant reductions in EMG, felt the most bored as a result of their feedback training, and were the most likely to rate themselves as having received false feedback. The implications of attribution theory and multiprocess relaxation theory for the evaluation of nonspecific treatment effects are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF01003480 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_BF01003480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>77324236</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-ded4bc735c621f57a681243212a61985aa8f7d12f0f0d4bc85c969dbb39b54fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1LAzEYhIMotVYv3oUcxIOwmo_dJOtNS1uFSi968bLkE1a3m5rsKvrrTemqp3l552EGBoBTjK4wQvz6bo6S0lygPTDGBacZJRztgzGiLN2FYIfgKMbXxJCSkREYUYY4EmIMXla6b2SAsjUwdlLVTf0tu9q30FlrlNRvN8mD9kM2_e7vHew-PZw9LqCq_S8FtW-74Bu4CV5b0wcbj8GBk020J4NOwPN89jS9z5arxcP0dplpQliXGWtypTktNCPYFVwygUlOCSaS4VIUUgrHDSYOObQlRaFLVhqlaKmK3Bk6ARe73FT93tvYVes6ats0srW-jxXnlOQkLTEBlztQBx9jsK7ahHotw1eFUbUdsvofMsFnQ2qv1tb8ocNyyT8ffBm1bFyQra7jHyYoSr05_QHud3oJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77324236</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>HODES, R. L ; HOWLAND, E. W</creator><creatorcontrib>HODES, R. L ; HOWLAND, E. W</creatorcontrib><description>This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the signal increased with deviations in any direction from baseline EMG levels (Stabilization). The results supported the use of Ocular but not Stabilization feedback as a control procedure in frontalis EMG biofeedback studies. Ocular feedback did not produce reductions in frontalis EMG but did lead to changes in subjective measures of nonspecific treatment effects that were at least comparable to those obtained with Veridical feedback. Stabilization subjects produced small but significant reductions in EMG, felt the most bored as a result of their feedback training, and were the most likely to rate themselves as having received false feedback. The implications of attribution theory and multiprocess relaxation theory for the evaluation of nonspecific treatment effects are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-3586</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-3270</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF01003480</identifier><identifier>PMID: 3607088</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BSELDP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Plenum</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Biofeedback, Psychology - physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Boredom ; Diseases of the nervous system ; Electromyography ; Electrooculography ; Eye Movements ; Facial Muscles - physiology ; Feedback ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Muscle Relaxation ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; Relaxation</subject><ispartof>Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 1986-09, Vol.11 (3), p.207-220</ispartof><rights>1987 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-ded4bc735c621f57a681243212a61985aa8f7d12f0f0d4bc85c969dbb39b54fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-ded4bc735c621f57a681243212a61985aa8f7d12f0f0d4bc85c969dbb39b54fd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=8307734$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3607088$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>HODES, R. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOWLAND, E. W</creatorcontrib><title>Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures</title><title>Biofeedback and Self-Regulation</title><addtitle>Biofeedback Self Regul</addtitle><description>This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the signal increased with deviations in any direction from baseline EMG levels (Stabilization). The results supported the use of Ocular but not Stabilization feedback as a control procedure in frontalis EMG biofeedback studies. Ocular feedback did not produce reductions in frontalis EMG but did lead to changes in subjective measures of nonspecific treatment effects that were at least comparable to those obtained with Veridical feedback. Stabilization subjects produced small but significant reductions in EMG, felt the most bored as a result of their feedback training, and were the most likely to rate themselves as having received false feedback. The implications of attribution theory and multiprocess relaxation theory for the evaluation of nonspecific treatment effects are discussed.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biofeedback, Psychology - physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Boredom</subject><subject>Diseases of the nervous system</subject><subject>Electromyography</subject><subject>Electrooculography</subject><subject>Eye Movements</subject><subject>Facial Muscles - physiology</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Muscle Relaxation</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>Relaxation</subject><issn>0363-3586</issn><issn>1573-3270</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1986</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1LAzEYhIMotVYv3oUcxIOwmo_dJOtNS1uFSi968bLkE1a3m5rsKvrrTemqp3l552EGBoBTjK4wQvz6bo6S0lygPTDGBacZJRztgzGiLN2FYIfgKMbXxJCSkREYUYY4EmIMXla6b2SAsjUwdlLVTf0tu9q30FlrlNRvN8mD9kM2_e7vHew-PZw9LqCq_S8FtW-74Bu4CV5b0wcbj8GBk020J4NOwPN89jS9z5arxcP0dplpQliXGWtypTktNCPYFVwygUlOCSaS4VIUUgrHDSYOObQlRaFLVhqlaKmK3Bk6ARe73FT93tvYVes6ats0srW-jxXnlOQkLTEBlztQBx9jsK7ahHotw1eFUbUdsvofMsFnQ2qv1tb8ocNyyT8ffBm1bFyQra7jHyYoSr05_QHud3oJ</recordid><startdate>198609</startdate><enddate>198609</enddate><creator>HODES, R. L</creator><creator>HOWLAND, E. W</creator><general>Plenum</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198609</creationdate><title>Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures</title><author>HODES, R. L ; HOWLAND, E. W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-ded4bc735c621f57a681243212a61985aa8f7d12f0f0d4bc85c969dbb39b54fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1986</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biofeedback, Psychology - physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Boredom</topic><topic>Diseases of the nervous system</topic><topic>Electromyography</topic><topic>Electrooculography</topic><topic>Eye Movements</topic><topic>Facial Muscles - physiology</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Muscle Relaxation</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>Relaxation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HODES, R. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOWLAND, E. W</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Biofeedback and Self-Regulation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HODES, R. L</au><au>HOWLAND, E. W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures</atitle><jtitle>Biofeedback and Self-Regulation</jtitle><addtitle>Biofeedback Self Regul</addtitle><date>1986-09</date><risdate>1986</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>220</epage><pages>207-220</pages><issn>0363-3586</issn><eissn>1573-3270</eissn><coden>BSELDP</coden><abstract>This study evaluated the adequacy of two novel EMG biofeedback control procedures. During a single training session, 36 subjects received either contingent EMG feedback from the frontal region (Veridical), contingent feedback for vertical eye movements (Ocular), or a feedback condition where the signal increased with deviations in any direction from baseline EMG levels (Stabilization). The results supported the use of Ocular but not Stabilization feedback as a control procedure in frontalis EMG biofeedback studies. Ocular feedback did not produce reductions in frontalis EMG but did lead to changes in subjective measures of nonspecific treatment effects that were at least comparable to those obtained with Veridical feedback. Stabilization subjects produced small but significant reductions in EMG, felt the most bored as a result of their feedback training, and were the most likely to rate themselves as having received false feedback. The implications of attribution theory and multiprocess relaxation theory for the evaluation of nonspecific treatment effects are discussed.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Plenum</pub><pmid>3607088</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF01003480</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-3586 |
| ispartof | Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 1986-09, Vol.11 (3), p.207-220 |
| issn | 0363-3586 1573-3270 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_BF01003480 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Biofeedback, Psychology - physiology Biological and medical sciences Boredom Diseases of the nervous system Electromyography Electrooculography Eye Movements Facial Muscles - physiology Feedback Female Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Muscle Relaxation Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) Relaxation |
| title | Ocular and stabilization feedback: an evaluation of two EMG biofeedback control procedures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T01%3A05%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ocular%20and%20stabilization%20feedback:%20an%20evaluation%20of%20two%20EMG%20biofeedback%20control%20procedures&rft.jtitle=Biofeedback%20and%20Self-Regulation&rft.au=HODES,%20R.%20L&rft.date=1986-09&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=220&rft.pages=207-220&rft.issn=0363-3586&rft.eissn=1573-3270&rft.coden=BSELDP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF01003480&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77324236%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77324236&rft_id=info:pmid/3607088&rfr_iscdi=true |