Suppr超能文献

特定效应以及生物反馈与生物反馈辅助自我调节训练的对比

Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training.

作者信息

Shellenberger R, Green J

机构信息

Aims Biofeedback Institute, Greeley, Colorado 80632.

出版信息

Biofeedback Self Regul. 1987 Sep;12(3):185-209. doi: 10.1007/BF00999199.

Abstract

In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models----correct research design----correct results----correct conclusions----advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations----faulty models----faulty research design----faulty results----faulty conclusions----confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of "biofeedback" as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, "Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective," we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of "biofeedback" and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is "biofeedback" with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind design that distinguish "specific" from "placebo effects," and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information--usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.

摘要

在任何领域,清晰且合乎逻辑的概念化都是准确模型的基础——正确的研究设计——正确的结果——正确的结论——该领域的进步。错误的概念化——错误的模型——错误的研究设计——错误的结果——错误的结论——混乱。在分析约翰·富雷迪(1987年)在《生物反馈训练中的特定效应与安慰剂效应:批判性的外行视角》中所表达的“生物反馈”概念时,我们关注两个问题:生物反馈是否具有治疗效果?生物反馈对于训练效果是否必要?在讨论问题(1)时,我们描述了“生物反馈”的多种含义,并提出一个基本问题:生物反馈是一种治疗方法吗?我们认为,临床生物反馈的错误概念化:(1)假定临床生物反馈中的治疗方法是具有特定效应的“生物反馈”;(2)假定生物反馈的科学依据依赖于通过双盲设计来证明这些特定效应,从而区分“特定”效应与“安慰剂”效应;(3)试图确定生物反馈信息的有用性,而这种有用性专业人员和消费者在逻辑上已经理解,并且实验室和临床的临床研究也已证明,这使得临床研究变得琐碎。我们进一步认为,临床生物反馈的准确概念化:(1)将自我调节技能确定为具有生理变化和症状减轻特定效应的治疗方法;(2)将生物反馈仪器信息的使用描述为自我调节技能的科学验证。最后,临床生物反馈的科学依据基于:(1)来自实验和临床对照研究的证据,这些研究证明了自我调节技能对症状缓解的有效性;(2)使用生物反馈仪器来验证自我调节技能的获得,从而符合可验证性的科学准则。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验