Skin Temperature Biofeedback and Migraine

Mullinix, Janice M.; Norton, Barbara J.; Hack, Stanley N.; Fishman, Marvin A.

doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.1978.hed1706242.x

Cited by 65 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19 In contradistinction, improvement in migraine has been reported, whether the subjects were given a true or false finger temperature feedback. 20 It seems to us that two factors mainly contribute to the general confusion of conflicting data and hypotheses:…”

Section: Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Volitional Manipulation of Hemodynamics a Valid Rationale for Biofeedback Therapy of Migraine?

et al. 1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSIS Responses of supraorbital (SA), superficial temporal (TA), and digital (F) arterial beds and the heart rate were studied in 5 normal subjects and 10 migraineurs, when their hand temperature was increased by volition and/or by heat. In normal subjects, volitional digital arterial dilation coincided with vasoconstriction in SA and TA. In migraineurs the response varied. Bradycardia resulted in most subjects except in unimproved migraineurs. Heat induced hand vasodilation led to dilation in SA and TA and to tachycardia. In those 8 migraineurs who improved clinically the finger temperature feedback training apparently did not result in conditioning of a single autonomic response (i.e. digital vasodilation), but in a general decrease of the sympathetic tonic outflow.

show abstract

Section: Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Volitional Manipulation of Hemodynamics a Valid Rationale for Biofeedback Therapy of Migraine?

et al. 1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This assumption is spurious for several reasons. First, whereas some researchers account for a number of placebo factors (e.g., Flor & Birbaumer, 1993), the introduction of sham biofeedback often demonstrates equivalence between veridical and placebo biofeedback (e.g., Andrasik & Holroyd, 1980, 1983Hunyor et al, 1997;Mullinix, Norton, Hack, & Fishman, 1978;Nicassio, Boylan, & McCabe, 1982;Plotkin & Rice, 1981;Rains & Penzien, 2005;Rains, 2008). Second, even if research confirms the specificity of biofeedback, the discrepancy between well-established relationships (e.g., muscle tension and chronic pain or heart rate variability and anxiety) and our muddled insights linking brain oscillations with psychological functioning, precludes generalization.…”

Section: Box 1 Mechanism Underlying Learned Neural Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychology of neurofeedback: Clinical intervention even if applied placebo.

Thibault

Raz

2017

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates of neurofeedback make bold claims concerning brain regulation, treatment of disorders, and mental health. Decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed publications support neurofeedback using electroencephalography (EEG-nf); yet, few experiments isolate the act of receiving feedback from a specific brain signal as a necessary precursor to obtain the purported benefits. Moreover, while psychosocial parameters including participant motivation and expectation, rather than neurobiological substrates, seem to fuel clinical improvement across a wide range of disorders, for-profit clinics continue to sprout across North America and Europe. Here, we highlight the tenuous evidence supporting EEG-nf and sketch out the weaknesses of this approach. We challenge classic arguments often articulated by proponents of EEG-nf and underscore how psychologists and mental health professionals stand to benefit from studying the ubiquitous placebo influences that likely drive these treatment outcomes.

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It is possible that symptom reports on headache questionnaires may differ significantly from reports obtained when patients record their headache symptoms on pocket-size charts, carried by them daily. Since reliability coefficients summarize only the correspondence between questionnaire responses on two administrations it cannot be determined from these coefficients whether subjects reported different levels of headache symptomatology at the two assessments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Headache Questionnaire Data

Andrasik

Holroyd²

1980

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSIS Psychometric properties of a brief headache questionnaire were evaluated in three samples of headache sufferers awaiting treatment. Although the test‐retest reliability of the headache questionnaire was substantial over a two‐week period, on several headache indices mean symptom levels were significantly different at the two administrations. Furthermore, when questionnaire reports were compared with daily headache recordings there was minimal correspondence between these two assessment methods. Although questionnaire methods of assessing headache symptoms appear reliable these findings suggest questionnaires may lack concurrent validity. It is suggested that headache questionnaires be supplemented with daily headache recordings whenever possible.

show abstract

Skin Temperature Biofeedback and Migraine

Cited by 65 publications

References 12 publications

Is Volitional Manipulation of Hemodynamics a Valid Rationale for Biofeedback Therapy of Migraine?

Is Volitional Manipulation of Hemodynamics a Valid Rationale for Biofeedback Therapy of Migraine?

The psychology of neurofeedback: Clinical intervention even if applied placebo.

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Headache Questionnaire Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About