Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of frontal EMG biofeedback and neck EMG biofeedback in the treatment of muscle-contraction headache

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Biofeedback and Self-regulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

EMG biofeedback from the frontal area (FFB) was compared to EMG biofeedback from the neck (NFB) in the treatment of chronic muscle-contraction headache. Both treatment groups (N=10) evidenced significant decreases in reported headache activity, with the NFB group also significantly reducing medication consumption. An analysis of EMG changes suggested that subjects were able to produce large within-session changes in EMG activity during initial sessions, with the major effect of additional training being an increase in speed with which these changes occurred. In neither group, however, did changes in EMG activity correspond closely to changes in reported headache activity.

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

  • Bakal, D. A., & Kaganov, J. A. Muscle contraction and migraine headache: A psychophysiological comparison.Headache 1977,17 208–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basmajian, J. V. Facts vs. myths in EMG biofeedback.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 1976,1 369–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budzynski, T. H. Task Force Report of the Biofeedback Society of America: Biofeedback in the treatment of muscle-contraction (tension) headache.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 1978,3 409–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budzynski, T. H., Stoyva, J. M., & Adler, C. S. Feedback induced muscle relaxation: Application to tension headache.Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 1970,1 205–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budzynski, T. H., Stoyva, J. M., Adler, C. S. & Mullaney, D. J. EMG biofeedback and tension headache: A controlled outcome study.Psychosomatic Medicine 1973,35 484–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, H., & Dickel, H. A. Tension headache.Northwest Medicine 1967,66 817–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, D. A. Analysis of variance tests in the analysis and comparison of curves.Psychological Bulletin 1956,53 141–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, W. L.Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld, A. M.The common headache syndromes: Biochemistry, pathophysiology, therapy. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips, C. Tension headaches: Theoretical problems.Behaviour Research and Therapy 1978,16 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shealy, C. N. Task force study section report on pain. Prepared for the Biofeedback Society of America, August 1978.

  • Travell, J. Mechanical headache.Headache 1967,7 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veterans Administration Medical Center, Wood, Wisconsin

    James D. Hart & Kathleen A. Cichanski

Authors
  1. James D. Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen A. Cichanski
    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

Hart, J.D., Cichanski, K.A. A comparison of frontal EMG biofeedback and neck EMG biofeedback in the treatment of muscle-contraction headache. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 6, 63–74 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998794

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998794

Keywords

Search

Navigation