Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neurofeedback—The Significance of Reinforcement and the Search for an Appropriate Strategy for the Success of Self-regulation

  • Published:
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nine healthy children took part in five sessions of feedback and instrumental conditioning of slow cortical potentials (SCPs). The feedback conditions (the relation between the feedback signal and amplitude of SCP) were inverted after two sessions. Neither the children nor the therapists were aware of this change. The adjustment of the children to the new feedback setting and the self-regulation strategies employed were investigated. The results were as follows: (a) Healthy children achieved control over cortical negativity within two sessions. (b) The change of feedback conditions worsened the regulation abilities, which then improved again within the following three sessions. (c) After the first two sessions, the participants were able to describe strategies that were successful during different phases of self-regulation. (d) Following the change in the feedback conditions, the children re-evaluated the way they influenced their SCPs. However, they did not alter the cognitive or behavioral strategies. The study demonstrated that positive and negative reinforcement and the knowledge of results are more important for successful self-regulation than the search for effective strategies. The relevance of these findings is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Basmajian, J. V. (Ed.). (1979). Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. G., Gillig, S. E., Posner, S. E., Weil, N., & Utz, S. W. (1986). The learning process in biofeedback: Is it feed-forward or biofeedback? Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 11, 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoi, V., & Staddon, J. E. (1999). The dynamics of operant conditioning. Psychological Review, 106, 20–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, B. (1984). Operant mechanisms in physiological regulation. In T. Elber, B. Rockstroh, W. Lutzenberger, & N. Birbaumer (Eds.), Self-regulation of the brain and behavior (pp. 296–310). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R. (1978). Cognitive development. Annuals Review of Psychology, 29, 297–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. B. (1987). Learning: principles and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, T. B. (1984). Concepts of control in biofeedback. In T. Elber, B. Rockstroh, W. Lutzenberger, & N. Birbaumer (Eds.), Self-regulation of the brain and behavior (pp. 277–295). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. M., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, R. P. (1995). Definitions of biofeedback and applied psychophysiology. In M. S. Schwartz (Ed.), Biofeedback (pp. 27–44). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. E., Birbaumer, N., Rockstroh, B., Lutzenberger, W., & Elbert, T. (1989). Self-report during feedback regulation of slow cortical potentials. Psychophysiology, 26, 392–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockstroh, B. (1987). Operant control of slow brain potentials. In J. N. Hengtgen, D. Hellhammer, & G. Huppmann (Eds.), Advanced Methods in Psychobiology (pp. 179–190). C.J. Hogrefe, Inc.

  • Rockstroh, B., Elbert, T., Lutzenberger, W., & Birbaumer, N. (1990). Biofeedback: Evaluation and therapy in children with attentional dysfunction. In A. Rothenberger (Ed.), Brain and Behaviour in Child Psychiatry (pp. 345–357). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, N. M., & Schwartz, M. S. (1995). Definitions of biofeedback and applied psychophysiology. In M. S. Schwartz (Ed.), Biofeedback (pp. 32–44). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siniatchkin, M., Hierundar, A., Kropp, P., Kuhnert, R., Gerber, W. D., & Stephani, U. (2000). Self-regulation of slow cortical potentials in children with migraine: An exploratory study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeed-back, 25, 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S. W. (1994). The effect of instructions on cognitive strategies and performance in biofeedback. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 291–308.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology, Neurological Clinic of Kiel University, Niemannsweg 147, D-24105, Kiel, Germany

    Michael Siniatchkin

  2. Neurological Clinic of Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Peter Kropp & Wolf-Dieter Gerber

Authors
  1. Michael Siniatchkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Kropp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolf-Dieter Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siniatchkin, M., Kropp, P. & Gerber, WD. Neurofeedback—The Significance of Reinforcement and the Search for an Appropriate Strategy for the Success of Self-regulation. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 25, 167–175 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009502808906

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009502808906

Search

Navigation