Hodes R L, Howland E W
Biofeedback Self Regul. 1986 Sep;11(3):207-20. doi: 10.1007/BF01003480.
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.
本研究评估了两种新型肌电图生物反馈控制程序的适用性。在一次单独的训练过程中，36名受试者分别接受来自额叶区域的偶然肌电图反馈（真实反馈）、垂直眼球运动的偶然反馈（眼部反馈），或信号随与基线肌电图水平在任何方向上的偏差而增加的反馈条件（稳定反馈）。结果支持在额肌肌电图生物反馈研究中使用眼部反馈而非稳定反馈作为控制程序。眼部反馈并未使额肌肌电图降低，但确实导致非特异性治疗效果主观指标的变化，这些变化至少与真实反馈所获得的变化相当。接受稳定反馈的受试者肌电图有小幅但显著的降低，因其反馈训练而感到最无聊，并且最有可能认为自己收到了虚假反馈。文中讨论了归因理论和多过程放松理论对非特异性治疗效果评估的意义。
