Methodological and Technological Issues in Biofeedback Research

  • Rolf R. Engel
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 2)


Stemming from two rather different psychological disciplines, psychophysiology and learning, biofeedback research combines the methodological problems of both fields in a very distinct fashion. It is questionable whether biofeedback is an independent scientific discipline today. A scientific discipline is determined by its methods. Current biofeedback methodology is lacking a comprehensive theoretical framework that could classify the various procedures that are used. Discussions of methodological issues in biofeedback research have been either very conceptual (e.g. Katkin & Murray, 1968; Crider, Schwartz, & Shnidman, 1969; Katkin, Murray, & Lachman, 1969) or have been addressed to specific problems that are found in biofeedback research but are not unique for this discipline. Recent examples regarding heart rate feedback are the papers by McCanne and Sandman (1975), Gatchel (1974), Lang and Twentyman (1974) and Borchard and Corson (1976), to mention just a few.


Operant Conditioning Feedback Signal Technological Issue Heart Period Feedback Procedure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bouchard, C., & Corson, J. A. Heart rate regulation with success and failure signals. Psychophysiology, 1976, 13, 69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Budzynski, T. H., & Stoyva, J. M. An instrument for producing deep muscle relaxation by means of analog information feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 231–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Church, R. M. Systematic effect of random error in the yoked control design. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 122–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crider, A., Schwartz, G. E., & Shnidman, S. On the criteria for instrumental autonomic conditioning: A reply to Katkin and Murray. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emde, J. W., & Shipton, H. W. A dual digital integrator for EEG studies. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1974, 37, 185–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engel, R. R. Measurement and quantification of surface EMG signals in states of relaxation. In D. Shapiro, T. X. Barber, L. DiCara, J. Kamiya, N. E. Miller, & J. Stoyva (Eds.), Biofeedback and self-control, 1972. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Ferster, B. B., & Skinner, B. F. Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fetz, E. E., & Barenstein, R. I. An electronic activity integrator for operant conditioning of patterns of neural and muscular activity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1975, 38, 87–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gatchel, R. J. Frequency of feedback and learned heart rate control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herz, H., Legewie, H., & Nusselt, L. Ein linearer Integrator zur Digitalisierung and Rückmeldung der elektrischen Muskelaktivität. Biomedizinische Technik, 1973, 18, 195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennings, R. J., Stringfellow, J. C., & Graham, M. A comparison of the statistical distributions of beat-by-beat heart rate and heart period. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 207–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Katkin, E. S., & Murray, E. N. Instrumental conditioning of autonomically mediated behavior: Theoretical and methodological issues. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 52–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katkin, E. S., Murray, E. N., & Lachman, R. Concerning instrumental autonomic conditioning: A rejoinder. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khachaturian, Z. S., Kerr, J., Kruger, R., & Schachter, J. A methodological note: Comparison between period and rate data in studies of cardiac function. Psychophysiology, 1972, 9, 539–545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krausman, D. T., & Lenox, J. R. An on-line integrator for alpha quantification. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1974, 6, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lang, P. J., & Twentyman, C. T. Learning to control heart rate: Binary vs. analogue feedback. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 616–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leaf, W. B., & Gaarder, K. R. A simplified electromyograph feedback apparatus for relaxation training. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1971, 2, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCanne, T. R., & Sandman, C. A. Determinants of human operant heart rate conditioning: A systematic investigation of several methodological issues. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1975, 88, 609–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radl, G. W. Einsatz eines hybrid-analogen Laborrechners mit kleiner Rechenkapazität zur Ansteuerung von Rückmelde-Signal-gebern durch die Elektromyogramm-Amplitude. Biomedizinische Technik, 1972, 17, 96–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thorne, P. R., Engel, B. T., & Holmblad, J. B. An analysis of the error inherent in estimating heart rate from cardiotachometer records. Psychophysiology, 1976, 13, 269–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weiss, M. S., Sobolewski, J. S., & Drury, R. A multipurpose electronic filter and integrating level detector. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 1972, BME-19, 395–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf R. Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatric HospitalUniversity of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations