Talk:Neurofeedback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed	rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Archives
April 2006 – April 2006

/Archive1

I reckon if this article could be cleaned up it would make for a very interesting read. Dessydes 14:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The current opening statement "Neurofeedback (NFB), also called neurotherapy, neurobiofeedback or EEG biofeedback, enables an individual to train brainwave activity, as measured by electrodes on the scalp, via feedback of EEG information in the form of a video display, sound or vibration" is too strong in stating that training IS occuring with neurofeedback. A more neutral point of view would state the procedure and indicate what practitioners believe they are doing and what research has been able to support about that belief.

I disagree with the above statement. Saying that NFB enables the "user" to [achieve effect] is, I'd say, coloquially synonymous with "provides the user the appropriate toolset for modification/attainment of [effect]." I believe this article to be written as neutrally as possible. Any more basic/PC would simply degrade the existant, and highly relevant, information. Quickfastgoninja 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The research indicated later in the article describes how training IS occuring.

1 General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this
2 cleanup tag
3 Comment on Improvements to Neurofeedback Article
4 Article heading towards a more scientific and factual footing
5 Sigh

[edit] General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

HeadleyDown editing as "Camridge (talk • contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "AliceDeGrey (talk • contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "HansAntel (talk • contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "Bookmain (talk • contribs)"
HeadleyDown editing as "HeadleyDown (talk • contribs)".
Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "JPLogan (talk • contribs)", "DaveRight (talk • contribs)", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.

Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk • contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, FT2, so you're not an NLP fan at all then, heh? I noticed HeadleyDown knows the difference between pseudoscience and science. He certainly put your little NLP hobby in its place. No wonder all your effigy burning! NLP really is a cult after all! SparksMc 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag. NPOV or not, it's changed and improved in the time since may 2005. -- ∞Wirelain 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wirelain. I have lots of good stuff on neurofeedback. I can add some good verifiable stuff and will tidy as I go. SparksMc 07:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Oh btw, its all positive and shows neurofeedback to be a legitimate scientifically adherent research stream. Its a shame NLP fanatics and Scientologists have screwed it up for so long. Still, the stuff I have will show the difference. SparksMc 07:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Improvements to Neurofeedback Article

I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive my current ignorance about how to post a comment appropriately with identifying tags, etc. I just want to say how HUGE an improvement the current version of the Neurofeedback article is-- over what was here a year ago! As an alternative medicine practitioner--and practicing as a licensed psychologist in California--the prior set of rants and raves was quite terrible to behold. The current article can easily be edited and added to and it is, above all, informative. I assume the Wikipedia editorial group must have done some work to rescue this article from its prior lamentable state, so, many thanks.

--Gregalter 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article heading towards a more scientific and factual footing

I wonder if this article would benefit from adding the work being done in neuroscience/neurology (see brain-computer interface page) as well as the psychological studies already detailed here? It sounds like the former direction of the article was to look at neurofeedback as an alternative theory. It's also being used to assist paralysed patients move computer cursors (and even limbs) by thought. So perhaps the core of the article is to describe the science behind it and then the applications. I think there is even talk of releasing computer games that use neurofeedback and there are sourceforge projects seeking to design an open-source EEG.

I also agree with the user that suggested merging this page with the EEG Biofeedback page. Big overlaps. --Saganaki- 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)