AN INSTRUMENT FOR PRODUCING DEEP MUSCLE RELAXATION BY MEANS OF ANALOG INFORMATION FEEDBACK¹

Abstract

An instrument that assists subjects in attaining deep muscle relaxation by means of analog information feedback is described. Subjects hear a tone with a pitch proportional to the electromyographic activity in a given muscle group. Results showed that subjects receiving this type of analog feedback reached deeper levels of muscle relaxation than those receiving either no feedback or irrelevant feedback. The basic method employed-electronic detection, immediate information feedback, and systematic shaping of responses-would seem potentially applicable to a variety of physiological events, and might be useful both in behavior therapy and in certain psychosomatic disorders.

Well-Established and Empirically Supported Behavioral Treatments for Migraine

“…Since the earliest empirical examination of a behavioral intervention for headache in 1969 [36,37], a considerable evidence base addressing behavioral headache interventions has emerged (now over 300 studies in print), and this literature has exerted a substantive influence on contemporary head pain management [22]. This impressively large literature uniformly has reported positive outcomes (i.e., behavioral treatments are more effective than control conditions; behavioral treatments are similarly efficacious with preventive pharmacotherapy), leading numerous professional practice organizations to recommend use of behavioral headache treatments as front-line interventions for migraine.…”

Open-Loop Audio-Visual Stimulation (AVS): A Useful Tool for Management of Insomnia?

“…The first study (N = 15) by Budzynski and Stoyva (1969) demonstrated that light and sound stimulation at the theta range (4-8 Hz) produced drowsiness and deep relaxation. Harris reported that light and sound stimulation (frequency undefined) promoted better sleep for his AIDS/HIV patients (Hutchison 1990).…”

Feedback modality and dimension in voluntary skin temperature control

“…Most significantly he appears fully justified in his criticism of studies which have sought to compare different feedback modalities without first controlling for the three other dimensions inherent in all feedback displays. In the light of the present findings it can be seen that experiments reporting differences among auditory, proportional, and visual binary displays (e.g., Budzynski and Stoyva, 1969;Kinsman et al, 1975) may be unjustified in attributing such differences to modal differences. The present results support attribution of the cause to the dimensional rather than the modal differences.…”