Advertisement

Biofeedback and Self-regulation

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 393–406 | Cite as

Effects of biofeedback on the discrimination of electrodermal activity

  • J. Michael Lacroix
Articles

Abstract

Twenty-four subjects were tested on their ability to discriminate between the presence and absence of negative skin potential responses before and after training to control skin potential. Training consisted of 52 discrete 30-second trials during which subjects were asked either to increase or to inhibit palmar sweating. Subjects in groups N and P were provided with analogue feedback on their skin potential activity. Group N was correctly informed that increases in sweating were indicated by increases in the negativity of skin potential; group P was misinformed that these were indicated by increases in the positivity of skin potential. Subjects in the control (C) group received no feedback. Reliable evidence of discrimination was obtained only in groups N and P, following training. However, reliable evidence of control was obtained only in group N. Thus, training to control skin potential led to an ability to identify afferentation associated with the more common (i.e., negative) skin potential responses, even though biofeedback training appeared unsuccessful in the case of group P. These findings are discussed in the context of “discrimination” or “awareness” accounts of the process of acquiring control of internal responses.

Keywords

Health Psychology Potential Response Reliable Evidence Biological Psychology Internal Response 
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. Baron, J. An EEG correlate of autonomic discrimination.Psychonomic Science 1966,4 255–256.Google Scholar
  2. Black, A. H., Cott, A., & Pavloski, R. The operant learning theory approach to biofeedback training. In G. E. Schwartz & J. Beatty (Eds.),Biofeedback: Theory and research. New York: Academic Press, in press.Google Scholar
  3. Brener, J. A general model of voluntary control applied to the phenomena of learned cardiovascular change. In P. A. Obrist, A. H. Black, J. Brener, & L. V. DiCara (Eds.),Cardiovascular psychophysiology: Current issues in response mechanisms, biofeedback, and methodology. Chicago: Aldine, 1974. (a)Google Scholar
  4. Brener, J. Factors influencing the specificity of learned cardiovascular control. In L. V. DiCara (Ed.),Limbic and autonomic nervous systems research. New York: Plenum, 1974. (b)Google Scholar
  5. Brener, J. Sensory and perceptual determinants of voluntary visceral control. In G. E. Schwartz & J. Beatty (Eds.),Biofeedback: Theory and research. New York: Academic Press, in press.Google Scholar
  6. Brener, J. & Jones, J. M. Interoceptive discrimination in intact humans: Detection of cardiac activity.Physiology and Behavior 1974,13 763–767.Google Scholar
  7. Diekhoff, G. M. Effects of feedback in a forced-choice GSR detection task.Psychophysiology 1976,13 22–26.Google Scholar
  8. Kuno, Y.Human perspiration. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1956.Google Scholar
  9. Lacroix, J. M., & Roberts, L. E. Determinants of learned electrodermal and cardiac control: A comparative study.Psychophysiology 1976,13 175. (Abstract)Google Scholar
  10. Roberts, L. E. The role of exteroceptive feedback in learned electrodermal and cardiac control: Some attractions of and problems with discrimination theory. In J. Beatty & H. Legewie (Eds.),Biofeedback and behavior. New York: Plenum, in press.Google Scholar
  11. Stern, R. M. Detection of one's own spontaneous GSR's.Psychonomic Science 1972,29 354–356.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Michael Lacroix
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Glendon CollegeYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations