Is Neurofeedback Scientifically Proven? Evidence, Research & What Scientists Say

Jul 17
4 min read

Research has been conducted into neurofeedback over several decades and is still being conducted at the clinical level. It seems that it is likely to help individuals learn brain self-regulation depending on the application. However, the quality of the available proof depends on the specific application area. Scientists and researchers continue to study the effectiveness of neurofeedback using clinical trials, systematic reviews, and other types of research. In case you are interested in trying neurofeedback, make sure that a professional will guide you based on the available scientific proof.

Cover image titled "Is Neurofeedback Scientifically Proven?" highlighting research, clinical evidence, and expert insights on neurofeedback therapy for brain health and self-regulation.

Key Points

Research has been conducted into neurofeedback for more than 50 years.
It has been researched for its applications in attention, anxiety, sleeping disorders, peak performance, etc.
The quantity and quality of scientific proof depend on the particular application area.
Scientific research in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback is continuous.
Neurofeedback is non-invasive and allows one to learn brain self-regulation through feedback.
A professional assessment of the person is needed before starting the program.

Introduction

The growing public interest in brain health leads to a natural and fair question:

"Is there scientific proof that neurofeedback works?"

Indeed, before choosing a certain therapy or training regimen, a person usually wants to know whether it is evidence-based or just a marketing trick.

However, the simple "yes" or "no" is not the answer here.

For decades, scientists have studied neurofeedback and its possible influence on brain self-regulation. There were hundreds of research papers written on the topic, some of which provided encouraging results, others of which need further high-quality investigations. As many medical interventions, the evidence base of neurofeedback varies depending on the condition under study and research methodology used.

This article is an attempt to give you a comprehensive look at neurofeedback, its research, existing evidence base, points of agreement and disagreement of the specialists in the field.

What is Neurofeedback?

Neurofeedback is an example of biofeedback that employs electroencephalography (EEG) technology for monitoring brainwave activity. In this procedure, electrical activity generated by the brain can be monitored by placing electrodes on the scalp. Such information is displayed in visual and auditory forms, allowing an individual to learn how to control their patterns of brainwaves.

In contrast with techniques that involve stimulation of the brain with electrical activity, neurofeedback technique mostly relies on providing information about ongoing processes in the brain. Individuals receive feedback while observing the screen or performing computerized tasks.

The purpose of such procedures is the promotion of the self-regulation of one's brain activity by means of feedback. Scientists believe that learning process caused by receiving feedback leads to changes in brain function, even though results vary between individuals.

References

What is Neurofeedback?
Biofeedback vs Neurofeedback
QEEG vs EEG

What Exactly is "Scientifically Proven"?

One of the most common myths regarding healthcare research is the fact that a particular therapy should be either fully proven or fully unproven. However, scientific research occurs on a spectrum.

Healthcare researchers use a variety of evidence types when evaluating interventions for the efficacy and safety.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

Randomized controlled trial is one of the most effective approaches to testing an intervention because participants get random allocation to different groups which allows the researcher to compare results of their work.

Systematic Reviews

Systematic review is the method that involves looking through all research done on a certain topic and analyzing its results according to some specific criteria rather than basing the conclusion on just one particular study.

Meta-Analyses

Meta-analysis is the combination of data gathered in multiple studies to assess the effect of a certain intervention.

Clinical Guidelines

Scientific societies take the time to examine the existing evidence base and come up with recommendations that follow from the present state of knowledge. It is possible that they will change as more studies become available.

The difference between these two types of evidence explains why sometimes scientists make rather conservative statements. The first promising study does not always translate into an effective treatment for all people and all diseases, whereas a significant evidence base increases confidence.

How Scientists Investigate Neurofeedback

Scientists can use a number of techniques to study neurofeedback. Usually, a study involves testing people prior to treatment, following their progress during the process, and conducting tests after treatment.

It all depends on the problem that the scientist investigates and may include such issues as:

Attention/concentration
Emotional control
Sleep
Cognition
EEG activity
Quality of life
Functioning

Other studies also involve comparing neurofeedback with conventional therapy, alternative therapy, or placebo control group so as to get a more reliable understanding of whether any positive results were a result of the actual therapy.

Since there are different designs, participants, and protocols used in the studies, results may vary in the studies. This is why systematic review and meta-analysis come in handy, as they take into consideration the bigger picture of all the evidence available, rather than just individual results.

Why Research Results May Vary

When searching online, it's likely that you have encountered the results of researches where neurofeedback is said to be very efficient in some articles and, on the other hand, in those that claim more research needed.

There are several reasons for this difference: