Advertisement

Biofeedback and Self-regulation

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 207–219 | Cite as

The effect of frontal EMG biofeedback training on the behavior of children with activity-level problems

  • Howard Hughes
  • David Henry
  • Anita Hughes
Original Articles

Abstract

N=1 withdrawal designs were employed with three children evidencing activity-level problems. Tutoring sessions occurred daily over a 2 1/2-month period. Each child was reinforced for decreasing frontalis muscle tension during auditory feedback while working arithmetic problems. Feedback was faded while tension reduction reinforcement was maintained. These procedures were repeated with reinforcement for increasing, rather than decreasing, muscle tension. Frontal EMG level, percent time on task, and motoric activity rate were obtained during sessions. Parent ratings of problem behavior in the home were recorded daily. Biofeedback with reinforcement was effective in both raising and lowering muscle tension. Effects were maintained by reinforcement. Results suggest a direct relationship between tension and activity levels. Academic performance and problem behavior improved significantly with reductions in EMG activity, although individual exceptions to these findings were present. Results lend support to the efficacy of frontal EMG biofeedback training in reducing activity, increasing attention to an academic task, and reducing problem behaviors.

Keywords

Problem Behavior Academic Performance Activity Rate Parent Rating Muscle Tension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayllon, T., Layman, D., & Kandel, H. A behavioral-educational alternative to drug control of hyperactive children.Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 1975,8 137–147.Google Scholar
  2. Bower, C., & Glass, G. V.CORREL andTSX. Computer programs, copyright June 1974.Google Scholar
  3. Braud, L. W., Lupin, M. N., & Braud, W. G.The use of EMG biofeedback in the control of activity and its behavioral concomitants.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 1978,3 69–89.Google Scholar
  4. Braud, L. W., Lupin, M. N., & Braud, w. G.The use of EMG biofeedback in the control of hyperactivity. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual International Convention for Learning Disabilities, Houston, Texas, February 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Connoly, D. P., Besserman, R., & Kirschvink, J. Electromyography biofeedback on hyperkinetic children.Journal of Biofeedback 1974,2 24–30.Google Scholar
  6. Feingold, B. Food additives and child development.Hospital Practices 1973,8 11.Google Scholar
  7. Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. M.Design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Nall, A. Alpha training and the hyperkinetic child: Is it effective?Academic Therapy 1973,9 5–19.Google Scholar
  9. Schulman, J. L., & Reisman, J. M. An objective measure of hyperactivity.American Journal of Mental Deficiency 1959,64 455–456.Google Scholar
  10. Sroufe, L. A., & Stewart, M. A. Treating problem children with stimulant drugs.New England Journal of Medicine 1973,289 407–412.Google Scholar
  11. Sullivan Mathematics Program. Palo Alto, California: Behavioral Research Laboratories, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. Sulzbacher, S. I. The learning-disabled or hyperactive child.Journal of the American Medical Association 1975,234 938–941.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Hughes
    • 1
  • David Henry
    • 1
  • Anita Hughes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorth Texas State UniversityDenton

Personalised recommendations