Key Studies

This unit covers the growing body of research supporting clinical and performance applications of neurofeedback. Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.) provides a comprehensive review of these studies. Here, we summarize representative randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—experiments that randomly assign participants to treatment or control conditions—and quasi-experimental studies, which compare groups without full randomization. Together, these designs provide the strongest available evidence of treatment efficacy.

BCIA Blueprint Coverage

This unit covers Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Mild Closed Head Injuries and Traumatic Brain Injury, Substance Use Disorder, Epilepsy, Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Depression, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Dyslexia, Sleep and Insomnia, Pain and Headache, Tinnitus, and Optimal Performance. It closes with modifiable biological contributors to consider when clients do not respond, and with cutting-edge topics in neurofeedback research.

Listen to Full-Length Lecture

Evidence-Based Practice (4th ed.)

We have updated the efficacy ratings for clinical applications covered in AAPB's Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.).

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is characterized by a consistent pattern of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that disrupts daily functioning or development (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). ADHD is not simply being easily distracted or having high energy; it represents a fundamental difference in how the brain regulates attention and behavior. Most children diagnosed with ADHD carry some form of it into adolescence and adulthood, so this is not something most people simply "grow out of" (Spencer, Biederman, & Mick, 2007). Reported persistence rates vary enormously with the definition used rather than with the disorder's course, being highest for syndromatic remission and lowest for functional remission (Biederman, Mick, & Faraone, 2000), which is why any single percentage should be read alongside the criterion that produced it. Check out Dr. Russell Barkley's video ADHD is a Disorder of Executive Function not Knowledge.

Attention Dysregulation Rather Than Attention Deficit

The disorder's name is a misnomer, and correcting it changes how you talk with clients and how you interpret what happens in the training room. A child who cannot stay with ten minutes of homework may spend six uninterrupted hours drawing characters from a favorite show or reading about black holes. That contradiction is not evidence that the attention is available on demand; it is evidence that its allocation is not under voluntary control. Most of attention is automated rather than deliberate, operating in the background to filter, prioritize, and suppress information much as breathing operates without conscious supervision (Anderson, 2021; Bishop, 2008).

What we usually call "paying attention" is the small, effortful portion sitting on top of that automated system. In ADHD, the automated layer is chronically disrupted (Lin et al., 2015), so the difficulty is not a missing quantity of attention but unreliable control over when attention engages, where it settles, and how readily it releases. Atypical dopamine reward pathways, the neural circuits that assign motivational value to stimuli, appear to drive much of this unpredictability, which is why intrinsically rewarding material captures attention effortlessly while equally important but unrewarding material does not (Tripp & Wickens, 2024).

Because symptom expression depends heavily on environmental demand, the same child can look unimpaired in a highly structured classroom and profoundly impaired during an unstructured summer, and an adolescent who managed well with parental scaffolding may collapse academically during the first semester of college (Murray et al., 2019). Diagnosis typically occurs at the moment demands exceed capacity, which is why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) found average diagnostic ages of 5 years for severe, 7 years for moderate, and 8 years for mild presentations. For the neurofeedback clinician, this variability carries three practical implications. First, a strong session followed by a poor one reflects the disorder rather than noncompliance, and framing it that way to families protects the therapeutic alliance. Second, an engaging feedback display can recruit attention that a dull display cannot, so in-session performance partly measures the screen rather than the client; varying displays and comparing performance across them guards against overinterpreting a single good run. Third, baseline and outcome assessments should sample more than one context, because a single clinic measurement taken in a quiet, novel, one-to-one setting is close to the best-case environment for a client with ADHD.

Persistence, Remission, and the Adult Client

The assumption that ADHD resolves with maturation shaped insurance coverage and treatment planning for decades, and it was wrong. Denworth (2024) summarizes evidence that roughly 2.5% to 3% of adults meet criteria compared with 5% to 6% of children, and that symptom-based estimates run considerably higher, approaching 9% in young adults. The DSM-5 lowered the adult symptom threshold and recognized that presentation changes with age: the child who climbed the furniture becomes the adult who cannot finish reports, sustain relationships, or pay bills on time. Full remission is uncommon. Reanalysis of longitudinal data by Sibley and colleagues found that only about 9% of people diagnosed in childhood showed no signs of ADHD in adulthood, and those cases tended to involve milder childhood symptoms and strong parental support (as reported in Denworth, 2024). The more typical course is fluctuation, with symptoms waxing and waning as environmental stress rises and falls.

Two features of this trajectory matter directly for neurofeedback practice. The first is the discontinuation cliff. Up to half of patients stop stimulant medication within the first year, and discontinuation peaks at age 18 as young adults move from pediatric to adult care, lose parental oversight, and absorb the cost themselves (Denworth, 2024). Many adults arrive at a neurofeedback clinic precisely at this transition, having lost a treatment that worked, and the durability evidence reviewed later in this unit is the most relevant thing you can offer them.

The second is measurement. Because symptoms fluctuate with life circumstances independent of any intervention, a single pre-training and post-training comparison can easily capture a stressful semester rather than a training effect. Repeated measurement across the training course, documentation of concurrent life events, and follow-up assessment months after the final session all guard against attributing natural variation to your protocol.

Emotion Dysregulation as a Core Feature

Families frequently describe the presenting problem as temper rather than attention, and the research now supports taking that description seriously. Emotion dysregulation, meaning persistent difficulty managing emotional responses that produces heightened reactivity, prolonged distress, and reliance on maladaptive strategies such as suppression or rumination, appears in a systematic review by Soler-Gutiérrez, Pérez-González, and Mayas (2023) to be a core symptom of adult ADHD rather than a comorbid complication. Adults with ADHD score lower on emotion regulation measures with medium-to-large effect sizes relative to controls, and those deficits track strained relationships, workplace difficulty, and elevated rates of substance use. Emotion dysregulation is a transdiagnostic factor, a process that appears across many diagnoses including borderline personality disorder and depression, but in ADHD it is bound specifically to impulsivity and executive dysfunction, which distinguishes it from the same surface presentation in other conditions.

The neural account is one of impaired top-down control. Prefrontal cortex, which supports executive control; the anterior cingulate cortex, which integrates emotional and cognitive information and monitors conflict; the amygdala, which tags stimuli with emotional salience; and the orbitofrontal cortex, which links emotional information to personal goals, together fail to modulate emotional reactivity efficiently (Soler-Gutiérrez et al., 2023). Event-related potential studies show enlarged late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes in adults with ADHD, a sustained positive brain response to emotionally charged material that indexes how much processing an emotional stimulus is consuming. The enlargement suggests these clients are spending more neural effort to manage the same emotional load. Behaviorally, the signature is difficulty returning to baseline after a setback rather than an unusually large initial reaction.

This has immediate consequences for how you set up an ADHD case. Administer a standardized emotion regulation measure such as the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale or the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire at intake and again at follow-up, because attention scores can improve while the complaint that brought the family in does not (Soler-Gutiérrez et al., 2023). Expect emotional reactivity inside the session as well, since a difficult trial or a missed reward threshold is exactly the kind of small setback these clients recover from slowly. Building in brief recovery pauses after failed trials, and coaching cognitive reappraisal rather than suppression as the client's in-session strategy, addresses the mechanism directly; suppression predicts slower emotional recovery and should be discouraged. Because the same review found medication and behavioral intervention to be synergistic for emotional outcomes, and because women with ADHD show greater emotion dysregulation on average, neurofeedback for these clients is usually best positioned as one component of a plan that also includes emotion-focused therapy, parent work, and, where appropriate, pharmacotherapy.

The Neurophysiological Basis of ADHD

Why do children with ADHD have trouble paying attention? The answer lies partly in their brainwave patterns. Children with ADHD often display an elevated theta/beta ratio (TBR), meaning they show too much slow-wave theta activity (4-8 Hz) and not enough fast-wave beta activity (13-21 Hz) over frontal and central brain regions (T.-S. Wang et al., 2024). To understand this, think of theta waves as the brain in a drowsy, daydreaming state, while beta waves represent the brain in an alert, focused mode. An elevated TBR suggests the brain is not revving up to full alertness when it should be.

This pattern may reflect cortical hypoarousal, a state where the cortex (the brain's outer layer responsible for higher functions) is not adequately activated. Imagine trying to concentrate while half-asleep: that is somewhat analogous to what children with ADHD experience. Their brains are not generating enough of the fast activity associated with sustained attention. The TBR may also reflect deficient cortical responses during mental effort or impaired top-down attention control, the ability to voluntarily direct attention where you want it, mediated by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Bluschke et al., 2016; T.-S. Wang et al., 2024).

Why TBR Seemed Like a Big Deal

The EEG theta/beta ratio (TBR) took off in ADHD because early studies often found that, on average, people with ADHD showed relatively more slow "theta" activity and/or less faster "beta" activity at rest—making TBR look like a simple, objective biomarker. But when researchers pooled results across many studies, the picture got messy. The grand mean effect was substantial (d = 0.62 across ages 6 to 18), yet effects varied a lot between samples and drifted downward over the years, and the drift came from rising TBR in the non-ADHD comparison groups rather than from any change in the ADHD groups. The authors' conclusion was that excessive TBR cannot be considered a reliable diagnostic measure, while a substantial subgroup of patients does deviate on it and may derive prognostic information from it (Arns et al., 2013).

The Core Problem: It's Not Specific Enough

TBR changes for plenty of reasons that aren't ADHD—like drowsiness, sleep loss, developmental stage, and medication effects—so a high value can't cleanly separate ADHD from non-ADHD. That overlap is why the American Academy of Neurology's practice advisory cautions that TBR should not be used to confirm ADHD (outside research) and warns about misdiagnosis risk if it's treated like a diagnostic test (Gloss et al., 2016).

ADHD Isn't One Brain Pattern

A key modern insight is that ADHD is heterogeneous: there may be a subgroup with elevated TBR, not the whole diagnosis. Large-sample work has reported evidence for a "high-TBR cluster" that represents only a minority of people with ADHD, which fits the broader view that multiple EEG profiles can exist under the ADHD umbrella (Bussalb et al., 2019; Bong & Kim, 2021).

So What's the Controversy, in One Line?

TBR can be an interesting research signal and sometimes an assessment aid, but overreliance turns a state-sensitive, non-specific ratio into a pseudo "brain test for ADHD"—a leap the evidence and guidelines don't support (Arns et al., 2013; Gloss et al., 2016).

Beyond Surface Power: Network and Connectivity Dysregulation

Surface power measures like TBR treat each electrode as an isolated report on local activity, but the brain regulates behavior by coordinating specialized regions into networks, distributed sets of structures that activate together to accomplish a task. Kerson and colleagues (2023) examined this coordination directly in the baseline EEG of 120 rigorously diagnosed children aged 7 to 10 from the ICAN trial, a multisite double-blind study of theta/beta neurofeedback. They analyzed coherence, a measure of how consistently the signals from two brain regions maintain their phase relationship and therefore an index of functional communication between them, along with phase relationships across every Brodmann area connection within five networks and across all major frequency bands. Brodmann areas (BAs) are numbered cortical regions defined by differences in cell architecture, each associated with characteristic functions. Because the resulting dataset held hundreds of possibilities per data point, the team used a Monte Carlo model, a machine learning method that repeatedly draws random samples and aggregates the results to establish confidence in patterns buried in complex data, comparing each child against an age-matched normative database.

The finding was hypocoherence, meaning reduced connectivity between regions rather than excessive connectivity, concentrated in three networks: the default mode network (DMN), which supports self-referential thought and mind-wandering; the salience network (SalN), which detects behaviorally relevant stimuli and switches processing toward them; and the attention dorsal network (AttDN), which directs and sustains goal-driven attention. Within those networks, Brodmann areas 7, 10, and 11 were the most dysregulated. BA 7 sits in superior parietal cortex and supports visuospatial attention, BA 10 occupies the frontal pole and supports higher-order planning, and BA 11 lies in orbital prefrontal cortex, part of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex tied to decision-making and emotion regulation. Secondary involvement appeared in areas serving language, object and face recognition, and visuomotor planning, including BAs 21, 30, 35, 37, 39, and 40 (Kerson et al., 2023).

Reduced connectivity in exactly the networks responsible for detecting what matters, switching toward it, and holding attention there is a coherent account of the disorganization families report, and it points toward training targets that a single Cz montage cannot reach. The dysregulated areas map onto familiar recording sites: BA 10 and BA 11 lie beneath the frontopolar sites Fp1 and Fp2, and BA 7 lies beneath the parietal sites P3, Pz, and P4. That correspondence is the practical rationale for connectivity training aimed at frontoparietal coherence in clients whose qEEG shows hypocoherent long-range connections, and for qEEG-guided site selection generally rather than a fixed protocol applied to every ADHD referral. Two cautions belong with that enthusiasm. Scalp coherence is degraded by volume conduction, the spread of electrical current through tissue from a single source to multiple electrodes, which can manufacture apparent connectivity where none exists; and the inverse problem means surface recordings can never uniquely identify which cortical generators produced them. Source-localized findings identify plausible targets, not certainties, and should inform protocol selection alongside the clinical picture rather than override it.

EEG Biomarkers Beyond the Theta/Beta Ratio

Because TBR alone cannot carry diagnostic weight, attention has shifted to other electrophysiological features that add information beyond behavioral observation. Alpha power, the magnitude of oscillations in the 8 to 12 Hz band traditionally associated with relaxed wakefulness and cortical inhibition, is one of them. Adults with ADHD show attenuated relative alpha at baseline, which the authors interpret as cortical hyperactivation, and after a session of neurofeedback targeting alpha desynchronization, resting alpha rebounded partway toward control values, with the size of that rebound correlating within individuals with fewer commission errors on a Go/No-go task, the standard laboratory measure of response inhibition in which participants must withhold a prepared response (Deiber et al., 2019). Note that this cuts against the hypoarousal account offered earlier, and the tension is real rather than just apparent. Different bands index different things: elevated theta and an elevated theta/beta ratio support a hypoarousal interpretation, while reduced alpha indexes greater activation, and spindling excessive beta has itself been read as a hypoarousal pattern despite being a beta excess.

The field's resolution is that ADHD is electrophysiologically heterogeneous, so hypoarousal describes one subgroup rather than the disorder, and arousal claims should always be tied to a specific band and a specific subtype. That combination is notable because it links a trained EEG change to a behavioral change in the deficit of interest. In children the picture is less uniform: some show subtypes with elevated alpha, and elevated alpha is more common when depression is comorbid, which limits its specificity (Byeon et al., 2020; Poil et al., 2014). More consistent is impaired alpha modulation during cognitive work. Children with ADHD show weaker alpha decreases while encoding information into working memory, and the magnitude of that failure correlates with poorer executive function and reading comprehension (Lenartowicz et al., 2018).

Event-related potentials (ERPs), voltage changes in the ongoing EEG that are time-locked to a specific stimulus or response and therefore index discrete stages of information processing, offer the most mature alternative. The P300, a positive deflection peaking roughly 300 to 600 ms after a task-relevant stimulus, is reduced in amplitude and delayed in latency in ADHD, reflecting deficient allocation of attentional resources. The contingent negative variation (CNV), a slow negative shift that builds during the interval between a warning signal and an expected imperative stimulus, is smaller and less sustained, reflecting impaired preparation. Meta-analysis places these differences at moderate effect sizes and locates them primarily in later, cognitive components rather than early sensory ones (Banaschewski & Brandeis, 2007; Kaiser et al., 2020). Error-processing components differ as well: the error-related negativity (ERN), a sharp negative deflection appearing within about 100 ms of a mistake, and the error positivity (Pe), the later positive deflection associated with conscious error awareness, both index the performance monitoring that ADHD disrupts (Groom et al., 2010). Combining ERP measures with Go/No-go performance produced a diagnostic index that separated children with ADHD from typically developing peers with large effect sizes and replicated in an independent sample (Häger et al., 2021).

None of these are diagnostic tests, and the honest summary is that they offer incremental validity over behavioral observation alone rather than a replacement for it. Their practical value in a neurofeedback practice lies in outcome measurement and protocol selection. An ERP paradigm recorded before and after a training course gives you a mechanism-level outcome that parent rating scales cannot supply, and a client whose primary abnormality is a flattened CNV is a candidate for slow cortical potential training on theoretical grounds in a way that a client with elevated resting TBR is not.

Screening for Refractory Features Before Training

The most actionable EEG findings in ADHD may be the ones that have nothing to do with power ratios. Reviewing routine clinical EEG in 1,233 treatment-refractory psychiatric patients, Swatzyna and colleagues (2024) identified four recurring features. Focal slowing, localized low-frequency activity indicating regional cerebral dysfunction often tied to old injury or lesion, appeared in 53.4% of the sample. Spindling excessive beta (SEB), frontocentral beta activity in the 15 to 35 Hz range with a spindle-like morphology, appeared in 25.1% of refractory cases and in about 12% of a broader psychiatric sample; a replication study confirmed that patients with SEB show more impulse-control problems (d = 0.87) and more false-positive errors (d = 0.55), though it failed to replicate the proposed link to sleep problems (Arns et al., 2015; Krepel et al., 2021).

Encephalopathy, diffuse slowing and amplitude attenuation reflecting toxic, metabolic, or hypoxic compromise, appeared in 10.9%. Isolated epileptiform discharges (IEDs), brief abnormal waveforms indicating cortical hyperexcitability, appeared in 24.3% of the refractory sample overall, and a systematic review found them in more than a quarter of ADHD cohorts, well above the roughly 1% to 3% reported in healthy children (Swatzyna et al., 2020, 2024). These are refractory-sample rates; do not read them as base rates for ADHD generally.

Critically, none of this is predictable from the diagnosis. Swatzyna and colleagues (2015) found only about 6% alignment between formal DSM diagnoses and specific EEG abnormalities across 386 refractory cases, which means a symptom-based referral tells you almost nothing about whether one of these features is present. The clinical consequences are concrete. Epileptiform activity is frequently subclinical and invisible to behavioral observation, yet both stimulants and antidepressants can lower seizure thresholds, so its detection changes medication decisions and warrants referral to a neurologist before training proceeds.

Spindling excessive beta argues against reflexive beta up-training over frontocentral sites, since the standard Lubar approach would reward activity that is already excessive. Focal slowing raises the question of an unreported head injury and may redirect the case toward the protocols discussed in the traumatic brain injury section of this unit. Capturing any of this requires reviewing the raw, artifact-inspected EEG in eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions rather than reading a spectral summary alone, which is the single most useful habit a neurofeedback clinician can adopt at intake.

Assessment Before Training: Sample Drift and Diagnostic Confidence

Every assessment instrument carries a quiet assumption that the client in front of you resembles the people it was built on. Diagnostic validity statistics are not properties of a disorder; they are properties of a test applied to a particular derivation sample, the population from which criteria, norms, and accuracy figures were originally generated. Sensitivity, the probability that a test is positive when the condition is present, and specificity, the probability that it is negative when the condition is absent, describe how an instrument performed in that sample under those conditions. The DSM-5 ADHD criteria and most rating scale norms were refined on samples that were disproportionately young, school-age, male, white, and clinic-referred (Barkley, 2015). The further a client departs from that profile, the less those numbers can be trusted, a phenomenon best described as sample drift.

College students illustrate the problem cleanly. Lefler and colleagues (2021) note that students are older than the derivation samples, lack the teacher informants that child-normed instruments assume, and become their own primary informant at precisely the moment when motivation to over-report may be elevated by accommodation-seeking or stimulant access. The requirement that symptoms be present before age 12 rests almost entirely on recall, which is vulnerable to bias in both directions, and the clinically important distinction between late-onset ADHD, in which symptoms genuinely first appear in adulthood and are more often attributable to another condition, and late-identified ADHD, in which longstanding symptoms were simply never recognized, is frequently collapsed in practice. Girls and women present a parallel case: the overt hyperactivity and disruptive classroom behavior that anchored the original criteria map more closely onto male presentation, while inattentive symptoms and internalizing comorbidities are more easily misattributed to anxiety (Quinn & Madhoo, 2014). Racial and ethnic minority youth are similarly underrepresented in normative samples, and referral bias compounds the effect, with Black children more likely to be referred for disruptive behavior and less likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis than white peers with comparable symptom profiles (Epstein et al., 2005).

One finding from this literature bears directly on how neurofeedback outcomes are measured. Continuous performance tests such as the TOVA appear throughout the studies reviewed in this unit and throughout everyday practice, yet a meta-analysis pooling 19 studies of commercially available continuous performance tests found their standalone diagnostic accuracy to be modest, with sensitivities from 0.59 to 0.75 and specificities from 0.66 to 0.74 across subscales (Arrondo et al., 2024). A high score neither confirms ADHD nor does a normal score exclude it. The useful distinction is between classification and change: these tasks are weak at separating one person from another but remain reasonable for tracking the same client against their own baseline, provided you administer them under consistent conditions and interpret a single score cautiously. Alongside them, gather collateral information from a parent, partner, or roommate, obtain historical records such as report cards and prior evaluations, and use validated impairment scales. Lefler and colleagues (2021) recommend that no diagnosis rest on self-report alone regardless of symptom severity, and that recommendation applies with equal force to the referral diagnosis you inherit before beginning training.

Distinguishing ADHD from Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Referrals for "attention problems" often arrive describing a child who argues, refuses, and loses their temper, and separating the two disorders that can produce that description changes what training can reasonably accomplish. Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is characterized by a persistent pattern of angry and irritable mood, argumentative or defiant behavior, and vindictiveness directed at authority figures. Its dysfunction lies in emotional regulation and social interaction rather than attention, and it is more closely associated with environmental and familial stressors than with the executive deficits that define ADHD (Forssman et al., 2012). Clinicians routinely fall into a diagnostic halo effect, in which the visibility of one symptom cluster colors the perception of another, so that impulsivity reads as defiance or defiance reads as inattention. Three questions usually separate them in practice: whether the behavior appears across settings or mainly with particular adults, whether it emerged early in development or situationally, and whether it looks unintentional or deliberate. ADHD symptoms are cross-situational, early, and unintentional; ODD behaviors are situational, emotionally reactive, and most pronounced with authority figures (Kaźmierczak-Mytkowska et al., 2022; Seppä et al., 2024).

Two consequences follow for neurofeedback. First, children with comorbid ADHD and ODD respond less well to methylphenidate than children with ADHD alone (D'Aiello et al., 2024), which means a substantial share of the families arriving at a neurofeedback clinic after medication disappointment are carrying an unrecognized ODD component. Their expectation that training will succeed where medication failed needs to be met with an honest account of what attention training addresses. Second, ODD shows up inside the training room as refusal to wear the cap, arguing about session length, and negotiating the reward criteria. That behavior is not resistance to neurofeedback specifically and will not resolve as attention improves; it requires behavioral parent management work and an explicit contingency plan established before training begins rather than improvised in session six.

Neurofeedback Protocols for ADHD

The Lubar ADHD protocol emerged from Joel Lubar and his colleagues' pioneering research with ADHD children at the University of Tennessee. The basic protocol trains clients to inhibit (reduce) theta activity (4-8 Hz) while increasing beta activity (13-21 Hz) over approximately 40 sessions, with each session using 30-minute training periods. The logic is straightforward: if the problem is too much slow activity and not enough fast activity, train the brain to shift that balance.

For electrode placement, the active electrode is typically placed at C_Z (the top-center of the head) for most patients, with reference to the left ear and a ground on the right ear. Clinicians may adjust placement based on individual needs: C₃ (left-center) for those who need to increase frontal activation, and C₄ (right-center) for those with right-hemisphere deficits. The active electrode for adults is placed farther forward, for example, at FCz.

Landmark Research Studies

Lubar and Shouse (1976) published the first single-case experimental demonstration of neurofeedback for hyperkinesis (the earlier term for ADHD). Their elegant design followed one 11-year-old boy, medicated with methylphenidate throughout, across five sequential phases: no drug, drug only, drug plus training to increase SMR (sensorimotor rhythm) while suppressing theta, drug plus a reversed contingency that decreased SMR while increasing theta, and finally a return to the original training. Two-channel bipolar training was used with one channel using a T3-C3 electrode placement and the other using a T4-C4 placement. Hyperkinetic behavior and sustained schoolwork improved under the SMR increase/theta decrease contingency, deteriorated toward pretraining levels when the contingency was reversed, and improved again when it was reinstated. That within-subject reversal is what makes the demonstration persuasive, since it is difficult to explain by placebo response or by time spent with clinicians. Shouse and Lubar (1979) extended the design to four children, three of whom showed contingent EEG change tied to improved classroom behavior; the fourth never acquired the response and did not improve.

Lubar and Lubar (1984) trained 6 children with attention deficit disorders twice weekly for 10 to 27 months, with a gradual phase-out, combining EEG biofeedback with academic support. Two bipolar channels provided feedback when SMR and beta (16-20 Hz) were above threshold simultaneously with theta below threshold at both F7-T5 and F8-T6. All six improved on grades or achievement measures, and none remained on medication for hyperkinetic behavior at the end of treatment. The paper reports no long-term follow-up, and the 8-year follow-up figure sometimes attributed to it does not appear there.

The intelligence and continuous-performance findings often folded into that study belong to a separate, larger one. Lubar, Swartwood, Swartwood, and O'Donnell (1995) trained 23 clients aged 8 to 19 in an intensive summer program that used a single bipolar channel with one electrode halfway between Fz and Cz (FCz) and the other halfway between Cz and Pz (CPz) to provide feedback when beta (16-20 Hz) was above threshold and theta was below threshold. They found that those who successfully reduced theta over the training sessions showed roughly a 12-point gain in WISC-R IQ and significant improvement on the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA), while those who did not reduce theta showed neither. That conditional relationship is the more interesting finding, because it ties the behavioral change to the trained EEG change rather than merely to time in treatment.

Lubar (1995) followed 52 patients treated with neurofeedback for as long as 10 years. Their improvement on the Conners scale, a standard measure of attention and ADHD symptoms, remained stable at follow-up. This durability distinguishes neurofeedback from medication, which typically stops working as soon as it is discontinued.

Rossiter and La Vaque (1995) conducted a head-to-head comparison, matching subjects on age, IQ, gender, and diagnosis and assigning them to either Ritalin (the most common ADHD medication) or neurofeedback. Neurofeedback protocols were similar to those used by Lubar and Lubar (1984). Both groups improved comparably on TOVA measures of inattention, impulsivity, information processing, and response variability. This finding challenged the assumption that medication was the only effective treatment for ADHD. Note the design limit, which the authors' later replication states plainly: assignment followed patient and parent preference rather than randomization, so this is a matched quasi-experiment and cannot by itself establish equivalence.

Thompson and Thompson (1998) reported treating 98 children and 13 adults over 40 fifty-minute sessions using a single-channel montage referenced usually to the left ear lobe with the active electrode at either C3 or Cz. Feedback was presented when SMR (or beta 15-18 Hz) was above threshold and theta (or alpha) was below threshold. The percentage of children using Ritalin declined from 30% at the start of the study to just 6% post-treatment, suggesting many children no longer needed medication after completing neurofeedback. Theta/beta ratios significantly declined for children but not for adults, and participants achieved impressive gains on intelligence tests, the TOVA, and the Wide Range Achievement Test.

Monastra, Monastra, and George (2002) compared 49 children in a 1-year multimodal program (Ritalin, parent counseling, and academic consultation) with 51 children who received the same program plus neurofeedback (weekly 30 to 40-minute sessions training SMR or beta while suppressing theta at the vertex, with points exchangeable for a $15 cash reward). Assignment followed parental preference rather than randomization, which is the study's principal limitation.

Here is the critical finding: both groups significantly improved on the TOVA and the Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale when medicated with Ritalin, but only the group that received neurofeedback maintained performance gains when unmedicated. A qEEG scan confirmed that reduced cortical slowing occurred only in children who received neurofeedback. In other words, medication improved performance temporarily, but neurofeedback produced lasting brain changes. Parenting style moderated behavioral symptoms at home but not in the classroom, highlighting the importance of parent involvement.

Gevensleben and colleagues (2009) conducted a multisite randomized controlled study of 102 children diagnosed with ADHD, of whom 94 were analyzed. The neurofeedback group received training that combined blocks of theta/beta training and slow cortical potential neurofeedback, while the control group received computer-based attention skills training. The combined neurofeedback group outperformed the control group on parent and teacher ratings, and both neurofeedback protocols produced comparable changes. Effect sizes on the primary parent-rated outcome were 0.60, with 0.64 for teacher ratings. Importantly, these gains were maintained at a 6-month follow-up, where the effect size was 0.71 (Gevensleben et al., 2010), suggesting the training produced lasting improvements; note that only 61 of the 94 analyzed children contributed follow-up data.

Slow cortical potential neurofeedback training (SCP NFB) involves training clients with ADHD to voluntarily regulate very slow shifts in cortical electrical activity that are associated with brain activation and attention. During training, EEG is recorded from the Cz electrode, and participants complete computerized trials in which they learn to produce either negative SCP shifts (reflecting increased cortical activation) or positive SCP shifts (reflecting reduced activation). Visual feedback is provided during most trials, while transfer trials require participants to regulate brain activity without feedback to promote generalization to everyday situations. The protocol consisted of 25 one-hour sessions over approximately three months, with an initial phase containing equal numbers of activation and deactivation trials, followed by a second phase emphasizing activation (80% negative-shift trials) because reduced cortical activation is characteristic of ADHD. The goal is to improve self-regulation of brain activity, leading to better attention, reduced impulsivity, and improved behavioral control.

Studies by Strehl et al. (2017) and Aggensteiner et al. (2019) report complementary findings from the same large multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating slow cortical potential (SCP) neurofeedback for children aged 7–9 years with ADHD. The 2017 paper by Strehl et al. demonstrated that, after 25 treatment sessions, SCP neurofeedback produced significantly greater parent-rated reductions in ADHD symptoms than a carefully matched semi-active electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback control, while also showing successful acquisition of SCP self-regulation, supporting both the feasibility and specificity of the intervention. The 2019 follow-up by Aggensteiner et al. found that both groups maintained substantial clinical improvements six months after treatment, although the initial advantage of SCP neurofeedback over EMG was no longer statistically significant at follow-up. SCP neurofeedback nevertheless showed stable symptom improvements across the follow-up period, whereas the EMG group experienced a temporary relapse before recovering, suggesting that both specific neurofeedback mechanisms and nonspecific therapeutic factors contributed to long-term outcomes.

One evidence rating is often quoted in this field and is worth stating precisely, because it is frequently misattributed. PracticeWise, the company that produces the Blue Menu of Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions distributed with American Academy of Pediatrics materials, has since 2012 assigned biofeedback a Level 1, Best Support rating for attention and hyperactivity behaviors, and the current edition still does (PracticeWise, 2026). Three qualifications belong with that fact. The rating is PracticeWise's rather than the Academy's; the table names biofeedback rather than neurofeedback, although the trials underlying it used EEG biofeedback; and Level 1 requires only two randomized trials by independent teams using manuals, so biofeedback shares the category with six other interventions rather than standing above them. Most importantly, the Academy's own clinical practice guideline reaches a different conclusion: Wolraich and colleagues (2019) place EEG biofeedback among interventions with too little evidence to recommend.

A NeXus-10 BioTrace+ caterpillar game. The three caterpillars represent the theta, SMR, and beta frequency bands.

Executive Function Outcomes and the Question of Dose

The landmark studies above established that neurofeedback changes ADHD symptoms. A more recent question is whether it changes the underlying self-regulatory machinery. Executive function refers to the family of higher-order processes that allow a person to inhibit impulses, hold information in mind, and shift flexibly between tasks, and roughly half of children with ADHD show measurable deficits in it (Diamond, 2013; Zhong et al., 2025). Zhong and colleagues (2025) addressed the question with a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis in Scientific Reports pooling 17 randomized and controlled trials of children aged 6 to 17, comprising 939 participants, with total training time ranging from 119 to 2,400 minutes. Control conditions included no treatment, treatment as usual, physical activity, cognitive training, electromyographic biofeedback, behavior therapy, and medication. Because outcomes were measured on different scales, results were expressed as the standardized mean difference (SMD), an effect size that converts each study's result into common units so they can be combined.

Two domains improved. Inhibitory control, the capacity to suppress an impulsive or inappropriate response, improved across 12 studies and 640 participants with an SMD of 0.36 and low variability across studies. Working memory, the ability to hold and manipulate information briefly, improved across seven studies and 370 participants with an SMD of 0.37, though variability here was high, signaling that not all protocols delivered equally. Global executive function measured by the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, a standardized parent and teacher questionnaire on which lower scores indicate better everyday functioning, favored neurofeedback across the three studies that used it. Cognitive flexibility, the ability to shift between mental sets or strategies, could not be pooled because too few trials assessed it, which remains a real gap in the evidence (Zhong et al., 2025).

The most clinically useful finding concerns dose. Splitting the trials at the median of 1,260 minutes of total training, roughly 21 hours, changed the picture entirely. Below that threshold, neither inhibitory control nor working memory improved significantly. Above it, both did, with inhibitory control at an SMD of 0.30 and working memory at 0.44 (Zhong et al., 2025). Treat those subgroup values as approximate: both fall below the overall pooled estimate for inhibitory control, which cannot be true of a proper subgroup decomposition, so the published subgroup figures appear internally inconsistent even though the qualitative dose pattern stands.

Set against the classic Lubar protocol of approximately 40 sessions using 30-minute training periods, which yields about 1,200 minutes of actual training, that threshold is a warning rather than a reassurance: a course delivered at the low end of conventional practice sits just below the point at which executive gains became detectable in this analysis. Session count is the wrong unit. What accumulates is active training time, and a 45-minute session that contains 20 minutes of actual feedback is not the same dose as one containing 35. Tracking cumulative training minutes rather than session numbers, and telling families at the first appointment that meaningful executive change is a multi-month commitment, sets expectations that the evidence can actually support.

Durability partly justifies that demand. Six to twelve months after training ended, working memory gains remained robust with an SMD of 0.63, while inhibitory control showed a marginally sustained effect, a pattern consistent with earlier evidence that neurofeedback effects on attention and impulsivity outlast the training period (Van Doren et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2025). Gains that persist after the equipment is put away suggest lasting neural adaptation rather than practice on a task, and that distinction is worth explaining to a family weighing a demanding protocol. The candid limitations belong in the same conversation.

Effect sizes were small to moderate, working memory results were heterogeneous, and the authors detected publication bias specifically within the long-duration subgroup analyses, where positive trials may be overrepresented. An earlier meta-analysis of 10 trials found no significant benefit for response inhibition, sustained attention, or working memory as assessed by neuropsychological tests, although more sessions trended toward better response inhibition (Louthrenoo et al., 2022). Neurofeedback earns its place here as an adjunct with durable, modest effects, not as a cure.

What Changes and What Does Not: Evidence from the ICAN Trial

If theta/beta training works by lowering theta, then theta should fall in the children who improve. Enriquez-Geppert and colleagues (2024) tested that assumption directly using EEG data from the multicenter, double-blind ICAN randomized controlled trial. Their sample comprised 142 children aged 7 to 10 with ADHD and elevated TBR of at least 4.5 at Fz or Cz, randomized in a 3:2 ratio to real neurofeedback (n = 84) or sham neurofeedback (n = 58), a control condition in which feedback is generated from prerecorded EEG rather than the child's own brain activity. Both groups completed 38 sessions over 14 weeks, and both received coaching, lifestyle recommendations, and rewards; medication was withheld for five days before each assessment. The team measured resting-state EEG across two minutes each of eyes open and eyes closed, and task-related theta during an oddball task, in which participants respond to infrequent target tones amid frequent standard tones. They separated global theta, averaged across electrode sites, from frontal-midline theta, which arises from medial prefrontal regions during cognitive control, and compared clinical remitters, children showing meaningful symptom reduction on standardized behavioral assessment, with non-remitters.

Resting theta did not change. Global theta shifted by a mean of −0.013 and frontal-midline theta by −0.012, with no significant differences between the real and sham groups and none between remitters and non-remitters. During error processing on the oddball task, however, the groups diverged sharply: remitters showed increased global theta after training while non-remitters showed a decrease, and a significant three-way interaction emerged for frontal-midline theta. Task accuracy and reaction time were unchanged (Enriquez-Geppert et al., 2024). Weigh those subgroup results against their samples: the resting-state analysis rests on 68 children and the error-processing analysis on 30, so the remitter and non-remitter divergence is suggestive rather than settled. The parent trial itself found no benefit on its primary outcome (Arnold et al., 2021).

Three practical lessons follow. The first is a measurement lesson: do not use resting TBR or resting theta as your marker of progress. In a large, well-controlled trial they failed to move even in the children who improved clinically, so a flat resting spectral profile at session 20 is not evidence that training is failing, and a favorable one is not evidence that it is working. Behavioral rating scales completed by multiple informants and task-based measures remain the defensible outcome metrics.

The second is a mechanism lesson: the changes that tracked clinical improvement appeared during error processing, when the brain was actively monitoring its own performance, which points toward protocols and training tasks that engage cognitive control rather than passive rest, and toward more selective targeting of theta-band networks than a broadband down-training of theta can achieve.

The third is a humility lesson: the divergence between remitters and non-remitters occurred regardless of whether children received real or sham feedback, a reminder that coaching, structure, reward contingencies, and lifestyle change are doing real work inside every neurofeedback protocol. That is not an argument against the training; it is an argument for delivering those bundled components deliberately rather than treating them as incidental to the screen.

Clinical Efficacy

Based on six randomized controlled trials, Stefanie Enriquez-Geppert and colleagues rated neurofeedback for ADHD level 5, efficacious and specific in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.). This is the highest possible rating, indicating strong evidence of effectiveness with well-controlled studies demonstrating superiority over credible placebo treatments.

Neurofeedback produces larger effects on inattention than hyperactivity/impulsivity (Chen et al., 2022; Van Doren et al., 2019). Think of neurofeedback like a workout for specific brain rhythms. The two protocols researchers have studied most, theta/beta ratio training and SMR enhancement, place sensors on the top of the head (at sites called Cz and Fz) and train the brain waves that control how alert, focused, and mentally "online" a person feels (Arns et al., 2014; Enriquez-Geppert et al., 2019).

When someone learns to dial down slow theta waves and crank up faster beta waves at the front of the scalp, the biggest changes show up in the medial and inferior frontal parts of the brain, the same regions that help you stay on task and catch yourself before making a mistake (Bluschke et al., 2016). SMR training seems to work through a slightly different route: it strengthens the thalamocortical circuits that generate sleep spindles, which in turn sharpens daytime vigilance and drives improvements in attention (Arns & Kenemans, 2014).

Hyperactive movement, though, is a different beast. It is generated deep in the brain by the basal ganglia and striatum, structures buried far below the scalp where surface electrodes simply cannot reach. So when neurofeedback reduces fidgeting and restlessness, it is probably doing so indirectly, by letting the cortex keep a tighter leash on motor output, or through the general benefits of sitting still and practicing self-control for an hour at a time (Solanto, 2002).

Research comparing different protocol variations found that beta upregulation, whether alone or combined with theta training, produced the most consistent improvements in response inhibition and conflict control (Enriquez-Geppert, Smit, Pimenta, & Arns, 2019). This suggests that enhancing fast brain activity may be particularly important for improving the cognitive control deficits central to ADHD.

Reviewing the same protocols for Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.), Enriquez-Geppert and colleagues (2023) emphasize that the efficacy rating attaches to personalized delivery rather than to a generic procedure. Established protocols show medium-to-large effect sizes with benefits that outlast medication over time, and that advantage is enhanced when protocol selection is guided by EEG subtyping rather than applied uniformly to everyone carrying the diagnosis.

Personalizing the Session for the Client with ADHD

Efficacy established in a trial has to survive contact with a restless nine-year-old in a chair for 45 minutes. Personalization is not a luxury here. Counting the ways the DSM-5 criteria can be satisfied gives some sense of the heterogeneity: with nine inattention and nine hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms and a threshold of six in a domain, there are 116,220 qualifying symptom profiles for a child, and 196,608 once the adult threshold of five is applied (Silk et al., 2019). A large state space does not by itself mean that no two clients are alike, since symptoms cluster rather than combine at random, but it does mean that a single protocol applied to a diagnostic label will fit some clients much better than others. Meanwhile the traditional therapeutic frame of sustained sitting, focused engagement, and quiet cooperation asks precisely what these clients cannot easily give. A former young adult client described the internal experience this way:

Looking back, I felt like I was thinking through mud. The teacher would explain an assignment and I would try to write down what she said but I'd get lost along the way and if I raised my hand to ask her to repeat, she would complain that I wasn't paying attention… After doing neurofeedback, I can now organize things and make my way through step-by-step processes. I'm still not at a typical level but I'm so much better that everyone notices and remarks on the changes. I still often feel like I'm trying to think through mud, it's just that the mud is quite a bit thinner than it used to be.

Several adjustments follow directly from the symptom picture. Hyperactive-impulsive behavior degrades physiological measurement as much as it disrupts conversation, so fidgeting, squirming, and talking during acquisition contaminate the very signal you are training; addressing movement artifact through seating, brief movement breaks, and realistic session length is a data-quality intervention, not merely a behavioral one. Frequent brief pauses help substantially, and a common practical rhythm is roughly ten seconds of rest every three minutes, which lets the client discharge restlessness on a predictable schedule rather than at random. Advance prompts about transitions, such as announcing that two minutes remain before switching tasks, reduce the frustration that abrupt changes provoke (Barkley, 2015).

Goal setting deserves equal care. Break the training course into achievable steps and set thresholds the client can actually reach, since a criterion that yields reward on 20% of trials teaches helplessness rather than self-regulation (DuPaul & Stoner, 2014). Immediate, consistent, reward-based feedback improves behavioral and academic outcomes in this population, and rewards can be tangible or intangible, from stickers to praise to extra playtime (Chronis et al., 2004; Pelham & Fabiano, 2008). One of the genuine advantages of any biofeedback modality is that progress is visible in real time, within a session, and across sessions; showing a client their own trend line converts an abstract commitment into visible accomplishment and helps sustain the extended dose the outcome literature requires. Structure outside the session supports the same goal, since consistent routines, visual schedules, checklists, timers, and planners measurably reduce inattention and hyperactivity (Evans et al., 2014).

Finally, involve the parents deliberately. Behavioral parent training programs significantly improve behavior and reduce symptoms on their own (Chronis et al., 2004), and the clinic is a natural place to model the strategies parents will use at home. Inviting a parent to observe how you prompt transitions, set reachable thresholds, and praise effort rather than outcome gives them a concrete method rather than an instruction. It also addresses the emotional context that surrounds most of these families, in which a child accumulates corrections and reminders far faster than praise and internalizes a message of inadequacy that criticism itself can worsen (American Psychological Association, 2016; Peris & Miklowitz, 2015). Reframing the family's question from "why aren't they trying harder" to "what structure is missing" is part of the treatment, not a preamble to it.

Integrating Neurofeedback into a Multimodal Plan

The evidence assembled in this section points consistently toward integration rather than substitution. Executive gains were strongest when neurofeedback complemented cognitive training, cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavioral parent work, or medication rather than standing alone (Zhong et al., 2025). Emotion dysregulation responds to combined pharmacological and behavioral approaches with synergistic effects that neither achieves separately (Soler-Gutiérrez et al., 2023). Comorbid ODD requires its own behavioral intervention regardless of what happens to attention (D'Aiello et al., 2024). And the ICAN findings suggest that the coaching and contingency components bundled with training carry real weight of their own (Enriquez-Geppert et al., 2024).

This integrative stance also answers a broader critique. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Tough (2025) argued that the field has leaned too heavily on a medical model of inherent biological deficiency, citing failures to replicate neuroimaging and genetic findings and the long-term outcomes of the Multimodal Treatment of ADHD study, in which the initial advantage of stimulant medication faded over time (Swanson et al., 2017). The critique lands where it concerns diagnostic inflation and overreliance on medication, and it is a useful corrective to any claim that a single EEG number defines the disorder. It overreaches when it dismisses neurobiological contributions altogether, because doing so would discard the refractory-case features, ERP differences, and connectivity findings reviewed above, along with the families whose children carry pronounced neurocognitive impairment that environmental adjustment alone does not resolve. The defensible position for a neurofeedback clinician sits between the two: ADHD is heterogeneous, its biological markers are real but distributed unevenly across the population carrying the label, and the most effective plans combine biological, psychological, and environmental approaches tailored to the individual profile in front of you.

Mild Closed Head Injuries and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) results when an external force produces intracranial injury through acceleration (the brain sloshing inside the skull) or direct impact. Unlike a stroke, which damages a specific blood vessel territory, TBI can disrupt brain function through both structural damage and altered neural connectivity across widespread regions. Check out Siddharthan Chandran's TED Talk Can the Damaged Brain Repair Itself?

Defining Mild TBI and Why It Is So Easy to Miss

Injuries divide along two axes that matter clinically. Open injuries involve something penetrating the skull; closed injuries occur when the head and a hard object meet forcefully or when rapid acceleration and deceleration throw the brain against the inside of the skull, as in a motor vehicle collision or a fall. Damage may be diffuse, spread across tissue, or localized to a particular region, and localized damage is very unlikely after a mild injury. Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is conventionally defined as loss of consciousness of up to 30 minutes, altered mental status for up to 24 hours, or post-traumatic amnesia lasting up to 24 hours; when any of these persists longer, or when structural imaging reveals intracranial pathology, the injury is classified as moderate or severe. Concussion is the everyday term for the same event.

The clinical difficulty is that mild injury is largely invisible to the instruments most clients have already encountered. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are usually normal after mTBI, and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which maps white matter tracts by measuring how water diffuses along them, has proved inconclusive in this population (Rosenfeld et al., 2013). Susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), an MRI sequence that exploits magnetic differences between tissues to reveal microhemorrhages and small veins, adds some sensitivity beyond DTI (Beauchamp et al., 2013), but most mTBI is still diagnosed by careful clinical assessment of the injured person and any witnesses as close to the time of injury as possible. Neuropsychological testing, questionnaires, and symptom tracking become useful two to three months later if symptoms have not resolved on their own. However, self-reported symptoms are not specific to mTBI and occur in a variety of other conditions. Measurable cognitive deficits are in fact uncommon several months after a single mild injury and, when present, are often attributable to non-cerebral causes such as pain, sleep disruption, or mood (Belanger et al., 2018).

Repeated mTBI may change that picture, though by less than is often claimed. The meta-analytic evidence from these same authors is sobering in the other direction: pooling eight studies of 614 people with multiple mTBIs against 926 with a single mTBI, the overall effect on neuropsychological functioning was minimal and nonsignificant (d = 0.06), with follow-up analyses detecting poorer performance only on delayed memory and executive function (Belanger et al., 2010, 2018). Repeated injury is a reason for closer attention, not a basis for predicting deficit. Cumulative exposure is nonetheless easy to underestimate: helmet-mounted sensors recorded a mean of 652 head impacts per high school football season, ranging from 372 for receivers and secondary players to 868 for linemen (Broglio et al., 2011), while collegiate players sustained a median of 257 to 438 impacts per season with individual players reaching nearly 1,500 (Crisco et al., 2010). Roughly 28,000 military service members sustained a TBI each year at the height of the post-2001 deployments, most classified as mild but frequently repetitive (Peskind et al., 2013); Department of Defense surveillance recorded 18,376 in 2024, of which 81.5% were mild.

The practical consequence for intake is that asking whether a client has "had a concussion" is the wrong question. Ask instead how many impacts, over how many years, in what sports, what vehicles, and what deployments, and count events including those never medically evaluated. Two clients with identical presenting complaints and identical normal MRIs may differ enormously in cumulative burden, and that difference should shape both your expectations and how you explain the client's situation to them. Many arrive demoralized by a negative scan they were told meant nothing was wrong; explaining that structural imaging is not sensitive to the changes that follow mild injury is often the first genuinely useful thing a clinician can offer.

Neurophysiological Changes Following TBI

TBI produces characteristic EEG abnormalities, including increased theta activity (slow waves) and decreased beta activity (fast waves), reflecting disrupted neural communication between brain areas (Chen et al., 2023). Axonal injury, damage to the long fibers connecting neurons, interferes with connectivity between brain regions. This leads to deficits in learning, memory, attention, and information processing speed, not because any single area is destroyed, but because the regions can no longer coordinate their activity effectively.

These dysregulated EEG patterns, abnormal brainwave signatures that deviate from healthy functioning, correlate strongly with neurocognitive impairments and provide targets for neurofeedback intervention.

What produces them at the cellular level is mechanical strain rather than gross destruction. Even low-speed impacts and acceleration-deceleration events deform brain tissue, and Geddes-Klein and colleagues (2006) showed that the resulting strain is complex and becomes more pronounced when forces arrive from multiple directions, as when a vehicle strikes more than one object in a single crash or several players converge on one during a tackle. That strain has downstream consequences. Mechanical stretching drives accumulation of amyloid beta, the peptide implicated in Alzheimer's disease, by disrupting axonal transport (Chaves et al., 2021), and even very mild repetitive stretch causes axonal growth cones to collapse and cytoskeletal proteins to mislocalize (Yap et al., 2017). None of this registers on CT, MRI, fMRI, or DTI, which is precisely why so many clients report persistent cognitive difficulty that their imaging cannot corroborate.

Injury Is Local, Reorganization Is Brain-Wide

Mild traumatic brain injury usually causes diffuse disruption to the brain. A focal injury as may occur in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, by contrast, does not produce a simple focal problem alone. Frankowski and colleagues (2022) mapped what happens to inhibitory circuitry after experimental TBI in mice using whole-brain imaging combined with rabies virus tracing, a technique that labels the neurons projecting onto a target cell so that its inputs can be counted. Their focus was somatostatin (SST) interneurons, a class of inhibitory neuron that regulates how much input local networks receive and how much output they produce.

After injury, SST interneurons in the hippocampus received substantially more local input from nearby neurons while losing long-range input from distant structures such as the entorhinal cortex. The same reorganization appeared in regions the trauma never touched, including the prefrontal cortex. Transplanted interneuron progenitors survived, integrated into the injured tissue, and formed both local and long-distance connections, showing that the injured brain retains the capacity to rebuild long-range circuitry.

Local hyperconnectivity paired with long-range disconnection is a compact description of what qEEG coherence studies find after TBI, and it has three consequences for practice. It explains why abnormalities frequently appear at sites remote from the point of impact, which means whole-head assessment rather than recording over the impact site is the only defensible approach. It supports connectivity-oriented training over purely local amplitude training, because the deficit being corrected is a failure of long-distance integration rather than a local excess or shortage of one rhythm. And it offers a legitimate mechanism for the durability of gains, since the demonstration that new long-range connections can form after injury is exactly the neuroplastic capacity that neurofeedback claims to recruit.

Demographics

TBI is far more common than most people realize. The 2023 National Health Interview Survey found that approximately 3% of Americans, representing nearly 10 million people, reported a TBI in the past year (Waltzman, Black, Daugherty, Peterson, & Zablotsky, 2025). There were approximately 214,110 TBI-related hospitalizations in 2020 and 69,473 TBI-related deaths in 2021 in the United States, averaging more than 586 hospitalizations and about 190 deaths per day (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023).

qEEG Assessment After Head Injury

Because structural imaging reports anatomy while the qEEG reports function and communication, quantitative EEG occupies a position after mild injury that no other accessible measure fills. The distinction matters because persisting cognitive symptoms and fatigue appear to reflect reduced efficiency of neural communication rather than tissue loss (Levine et al., 2008). The qEEG measures most consistently associated with TBI are therefore communication metrics rather than amplitude alone: coherence, and phase, the timing relationship between signals recorded at two sites, which indexes how quickly information travels between them (Thatcher et al., 1989). Localized findings do appear with more severe injury, and while moderate to severe closed TBI typically involves frontotemporal regions, localized damage is heterogeneous enough that no standard pattern can be assumed.

Two clinical illustrations show what the qEEG adds and what it demands of the clinician. In the first, a person struck in the face by a closed fist was recorded four days after the assault; LORETA, or low-resolution electromagnetic tomography, a method that estimates three-dimensional cortical sources from scalp recordings, revealed 2 Hz delta activity more than two standard deviations above age-matched norms in right posterior temporal, parietal, and occipital cortex, consistent with a contrecoup injury in which the brain rebounds against the skull opposite the point of impact. A recording two months later at the same frequency and threshold showed complete resolution, with no intervention beyond rest and leave from work (M. Tracy, personal communication). In the second, a client with multiple concussions and additional attentional and behavioral problems showed excess delta, theta, and alpha on topographic statistical maps, much of which had resolved after ten neurofeedback sessions (Koberda, 2015).

Read together, those two cases carry a warning that is easy to overlook. Spontaneous recovery after a single mild injury is common and can be substantial within weeks, so a qEEG recorded days after an injury is a poor pre-treatment baseline: improvement measured against it will confound natural healing with training effects. When the injury is recent and the client is not deteriorating, the defensible options are to document the early recording explicitly as an acute measurement, to establish the treatment baseline after the natural recovery window has passed, or to be candid in your reporting that early gains cannot be attributed to training. When the injury is remote and symptoms have persisted for months, that ambiguity largely disappears and the baseline is interpretable.

Neurofeedback Studies

Ayers (1995) reported treating 32 level-two coma patients, individuals who had been comatose for more than 2 months, noninvasively with neurofeedback, and described 25 of the 32 emerging from coma after only 1 to 6 treatments. The protocol involved inhibiting 4-7 Hz activity (slow waves) while reinforcing 15-18 Hz activity (faster waves). This report is widely repeated and should be handled with corresponding care: it is a two-page abstract from the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback annual meeting rather than a peer-reviewed study, so no methods, diagnostic criteria, outcome definitions, or statistics are available for scrutiny, and no independent replication exists. The closest subsequent attempt trained three patients in unresponsive wakefulness and reported EEG change without emergence, describing itself as the first evidence that neurofeedback can be applied in this population (Keller et al., 2015). Cite Ayers as a clinical anecdote worth following up, not as evidence of efficacy.

Walker, Norman, and Weber (2002) treated 26 patients with persistent symptoms after mild closed head injury and reported that 88% achieved more than 50% improvement in EEG coherence, a measure of how well different brain regions communicate, with a mean improvement of 72.7%. All patients who had been previously employed reported returning to work after completing their training, a particularly meaningful outcome given that TBI often ends careers. The study was an uncontrolled open trial with self-reported vocational outcomes, and the 88% figure describes change in the trained measure rather than in symptoms or function.

Clinical Efficacy

Anne Ward Stevens and Kori Trotter rated neurofeedback for concussion as level 3, probably efficacious in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.).

Chen and colleagues (2023) conducted a pre-post randomized controlled study that included adult patients with mild TBI and a few with moderate and severe TBI who had sustained injury at least six months previously, and who reported cognitive problems that affected their day-to-day activity. Subjects were randomized to one of three groups. One group received LORETA z-score neurofeedback (LZN) targeting the anterior cingulate cortex, with a second group receiving 2-channel neurofeedback at Fz and Cz to decrease the theta/beta ratio, and a third group receiving usual care. After training, the LORETA z-score group showed visual memory improvements that significantly exceeded the usual care group, and that were more wide-spread than the 2-channel training group, whose own immediate recall performance still exceeded that seen in the usual care group. Both neurofeedback groups also showed improvements in selective attention that were significantly better than seen in the usual care group.

No significant differences between groups were found for information processing speed. Only the LORETA z-score group showed significant gains in community integration after training, but no group significantly improved quality of life results. This interesting recent study provides encouraging results to pursue 19-channel LORETA z-score neurofeedback. The authors also report limitations of their study including selection of subjects only from hospital clinics, use of mostly mild TBI subjects, failure to control for mental health variables, and non-equivalence of the two neurofeedback groups in that the LORETA group received more training time. In addition to addressing these shortcomings, the study would have been strengthened by examining how durable the results were, for instance, by collecting follow-up measures.

Infra-low frequency training for veterans with a diagnosed mild TBI was studied by Carlson and associates (2025) comparing outcome against a matched control group who received telephone support in a randomized controlled investigation with a two-month follow-up. Electrode sites were T4-P4, T3-P3, T4-Fp2, and T3-Fp1, with individualized combinations of sites based on response to training. The effects of neurofeedback on postconcussive symptoms were the focus of study. Postconcussive symptoms are nonspecific, meaning that they are frequently observed in members of the healthy general population. At the end of training, the neurofeedback group showed significantly greater improvement than the control group for measures of headache, sleep, sustained attention and impulse control, anxiety and depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress symptoms, quality of life, and social participation. As encouraging as the results of this study are, problems such as differential therapist contact time and lack of follow-up limit the strength of the study’s findings.

Reviewing the same literature for the traumatic brain injury chapter of that volume, Foster, Foster, and Gross reached the same level 3 rating on the basis of four controlled trials, among them Keller's (2001) comparison of beta uptraining in 12 patients against 9 matched controls receiving computerized training, and a 20-participant pilot trial comparing focused attention meditation with meditation plus mobile neurofeedback for persistent symptoms after mild to moderate injury (Polich et al., 2020). Both are small, and Keller's used matched rather than randomized controls, so the rating rests on a thin evidence base. Their central conclusion is one of protocol philosophy rather than effect size: because TBI is so heterogeneous, neurofeedback succeeds to the degree that it addresses the particular symptoms of the particular client, and qEEG together with other functional neuroimaging is what allows presenting complaints to be matched to specific network anomalies (Foster et al., 2023).

Neurofeedback for TBI works through neuroplasticity, the brain's remarkable capacity to reorganize neural pathways and form new connections. Just as physical therapy helps the body compensate for injury by strengthening alternative pathways, neurofeedback helps the brain develop new patterns of activity. Training typically involves inhibiting slow-wave activity (4-7 Hz) and rewarding faster frequencies (15-18 Hz) at sites showing abnormality on qEEG assessment.

Customizing the Protocol: Z-Score and LORETA Training

What TBI degrades is efficiency rather than capacity, and the distinction shapes protocol design. Processing slows and attention fragments across its several forms, which include focused, sustained, selective, alternating, and divided attention. Because higher functions such as language, visuospatial construction, and reasoning are built from these more basic operations, an attentional bottleneck propagates outward into domains that appear unrelated to it. A useful analogy is a highway reduced from many lanes to one or two by construction: nothing is destroyed, but flow becomes halting, accordion-like, and prone to minor collisions. Clients describe this from the inside as mental effort where effort used to be unnecessary, with tasks that were once overlearned and automatic now requiring deliberate work, and with cognitive and emotional strain arriving together.

Three technical developments allow training to be matched to that profile. Z-score training applies operant conditioning against real-time comparisons with a normative database, so the reward criterion follows the client's specific deviations rather than a fixed frequency target. Training several measures concurrently, such as inhibiting 4 to 7 Hz while rewarding 15 to 18 Hz, while also training connectivity metrics, addresses the multi-dimensional nature of post-injury dysregulation rather than one band at a time. LORETA extends both by moving the training target from the scalp toward the estimated cortical source, permitting greater specificity when the qEEG localizes the problem to a particular region or network (Foster et al., 2023; Koberda, 2015). Together these answer the customization question that the heterogeneity of TBI raises: rather than choosing a protocol for the diagnosis, you choose training targets for the deviations this client actually shows.

One caution belongs alongside this enthusiasm. Neurofeedback is efficacious and specific for ADHD, a condition defined by attentional and executive dysfunction, and the resemblance between post-injury attentional complaints and ADHD is close enough to make borrowing the ADHD protocol tempting. Similar symptoms, however, do not guarantee similar mechanisms, and the mechanism of action in mTBI may well differ from the mechanism in ADHD. Let the client's qEEG rather than the symptom label determine the protocol. For outcome measurement, supplement symptom report with attention measures administered before and after training, such as a continuous performance test, an n-back task, the Auditory Consonant Trigrams test, or the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, chosen so that the measure reflects the specific attentional subtype the client reports losing (Foster et al., 2023).

Psychiatric Vigilance After Head Injury

Head injury changes psychiatric risk, not only cognition. Trivedi and colleagues (2024) analyzed the 2017 National Inpatient Sample, isolating more than 26,000 individuals hospitalized with a TBI and matching them by age and sex to an equal number without one. Non-mood psychotic disorders, meaning conditions such as schizophrenia and delusional disorder in which psychosis is not driven primarily by mood change, were diagnosed in nearly 11% of the TBI group compared with fewer than 5% of controls. After adjustment for demographic, medical, and psychiatric variables, TBI remained an independent predictor associated with more than a twofold increase in odds, with the association strongest among younger patients and those carrying comorbid bipolar disorder, substance use, anxiety, intellectual disability, or personality disorders. The design imposes an important limit: because the data are cross-sectional hospital records, they cannot establish whether the psychotic disorder preceded or followed the injury.

The mechanisms the authors propose are familiar from earlier sections of this unit. TBI disrupts frontal–subcortical circuits and limbic-cortical pathways that support executive function, emotion regulation, and reality testing, the same networks implicated in psychotic illness. Microstructural and functional changes in prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala produce aberrant connectivity and altered dopaminergic signaling, particularly along the mesolimbic pathway whose dysregulation is a long-standing account of psychosis, with neuroinflammation, white matter damage, and oxidative stress plausibly compounding the effect. This is the logic of the second hit hypothesis, in which a genetic or developmental vulnerability constitutes the first hit and a later environmental insult such as head injury constitutes the second, disrupting maturation during a sensitive period and accelerating a trajectory that might otherwise never have been completed. Injury-related attentional and organizational deficits may also strip away the coping capacity that would ordinarily let early symptoms be compensated or concealed.

For a neurofeedback clinician this translates into a specific monitoring responsibility. Clients training for post-concussive symptoms, especially younger clients and those with the psychiatric comorbidities listed above, warrant periodic screening for emerging paranoia, perceptual disturbance, and unusual beliefs, with a referral pathway established before it is needed rather than improvised during a crisis. It also guards against a serious misattribution. When such symptoms surface during a training course, the reflex is to treat them as an adverse response to the protocol and adjust reward thresholds; the evidence here argues that psychiatric evaluation, not protocol titration, is the correct first move. The comorbidity pattern additionally links this section to the one that follows, since substance use both amplifies the risk observed here and frequently accompanies the head injuries that bring clients to a neurofeedback practice in the first place.

Substance Use Disorder

Imagine trying to help someone who has lost jobs, relationships, and housing to addiction, who may feel that external forces control their life, and who has failed at recovery multiple times. Substance use disorder (SUD) presents some of the most challenging cases in clinical practice. Biofeedback can serve as a self-regulation strategy to help manage alcohol and drug cravings and negative thinking patterns.

Personality Traits But No Addictive Personality

The DSM-5-TR characterizes substance use disorders by loss of control over use, continued use despite serious negative consequences, and preoccupation with obtaining the substance, using it, and recovering from its effects (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Jaffe (1980) anticipated that framing decades earlier, defining addiction as a behavioral pattern marked by compulsive use, securing supply, a high tendency to relapse after withdrawal, and the triad of craving, withdrawal, and tolerance. Clients and families often arrive with a different framework entirely, one built around the idea of an addictive personality, a supposed personality type that destines certain people for addiction. That concept does not survive examination, and understanding why changes how you conduct treatment.

The problem is that no set of traits applies universally. Impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and neuroticism are all repeatedly associated with addiction, yet many people who score high on them never develop a substance use disorder and many people with substance use disorders do not show them. A range of personality disorders appears among people with substance dependence, but none predicts outcome strongly (Berglund et al., 2011; Franques et al., 2000). Addiction reflects an interplay of genetic predisposition, environment, and individual history, so a highly impulsive person embedded in strong social support with little exposure may never develop a problem, while a person low in impulsivity may develop one under severe environmental stress (Koob & Volkow, 2010). The findings are not merely complex but sometimes contradictory: impulsivity is strongly tied to substance use disorders yet its relationship to behavioral addictions such as gambling is far less clear, and trait effects are moderated by age, gender, and culture, with sensation-seeking mattering most in adolescence and neuroticism mattering most in adults using substances to manage chronic distress (Kotov et al., 2010; Verdejo-García & Pérez-García, 2007; Zilberman et al., 2018).

Individual traits nevertheless carry real information, and it is information for use in your protocol development and adjunctive treatment rather than about your client's identity. Impulsivity, the tendency to act on urges with little forethought, predicts earlier experimentation, faster progression, and greater difficulty maintaining abstinence, largely through an impaired capacity to delay gratification that also undermines adherence to treatment plans and resistance to cravings and triggers (de Wit, 2009; Evenden, 1999). A highly impulsive client is therefore predictably at risk of dropping out of a 30-session alpha-theta course long before its benefits appear, which is an argument for front-loading contingency management, keeping early sessions short, and making progress visible from the first appointment. This is also the clearest rationale for the sequencing built into the Scott–Kaiser protocol described below, which begins with attention training before alpha-theta work: the attentional and impulse-control deficits that make alpha-theta training hard to complete are treated first rather than assumed away.

Neuroticism, meaning emotional instability and a propensity toward anxiety, guilt, and depressed mood, predicts substance use as self-medication and predicts the transition from use to dependence in longitudinal research (Kotov et al., 2010; Terracciano & Costa, 2004). For these clients the emotion-regulation and autonomic components of a plan, including HRV biofeedback and the reappraisal skills discussed in the depression section, are not adjuncts but a direct treatment of the maintaining mechanism. Conscientiousness, the tendency toward self-discipline, organization, and forethought, is protective and is associated with lower rates of binge drinking, drug use, and smoking even among people carrying other risk factors (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Roberts et al., 2005). Low conscientiousness predicts missed appointments and abandoned home practice, which argues for external structure, reminders, and scheduled sessions rather than for exhortation. Sensation-seeking, a desire for novel and intense experience, raises the risk of initiation but appears largely irrelevant to continued use once dependence has developed, so it belongs in a prevention conversation more than in a relapse-prevention plan (Franques et al., 2000; Zuckerman, 2007).

Rejecting the addictive personality construct also changes what you say to clients. A label describing an entire personality as defective invites a self-fulfilling prophecy in which both clinician and client treat relapse as inevitable, and it adds shame to a population already carrying a great deal of it. Traits, by contrast, name modifiable targets: impulsivity can be trained, emotional regulation can be taught, and structure can substitute for conscientiousness that has not yet developed. Framing your formulation in those terms is more accurate, more hopeful, and more useful for planning than any personality profile would be.

Neurophysiological Basis

Individuals with substance use disorders display altered EEG patterns, particularly within the alpha, theta, and beta bands. The characteristic pattern is low alpha (the relaxed, wakeful rhythm) combined with high beta (fast activity associated with anxiety and rumination), particularly with a distribution in posterior electrode sites. This pattern has been interpreted as central nervous system hyperarousal, a chronically overactivated brain state associated with anxiety, higher relapse risk, and poor treatment outcomes (Sokhadze, Cannon, & Trudeau, 2008). The profile is best documented in alcohol dependence; the same review reports the opposite pattern, excess frontal alpha, in cocaine-dependent patients, so treat low alpha with high beta as one presentation among several rather than the signature of substance use disorder generally. Think of it as a brain that cannot calm down, constantly on edge and seeking relief, which substances temporarily provide.

Alpha-theta neurofeedback induces a hypnagogic state, the twilight zone between waking and sleeping where consciousness becomes fluid and dreamlike. This state may facilitate access to unconscious material and support psychological transformation. Recent research confirms that alpha-theta protocols reduce craving, anxiety, and relapse rates among individuals with alcohol and substance dependence (Sanader Vukadinovic, 2025).

Brain Differences That Precede Substance Use

A standing assumption in this field holds that the structural brain differences observed in people with substance use disorders, principally thinner cortex and smaller volumes in regions supporting decision-making and impulse control, are consequences of neurotoxicity, the damage substances inflict on nervous tissue. Miller and colleagues (2024) tested that assumption by reversing the temporal order, that is, examining the brains of children before addiction, and then later re-examining their brains at a time when some had begun using drugs while others had not. Drawing on the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a National Institutes of Health project following nearly 12,000 American children from ages nine and ten into young adulthood, they scanned 9,804 children aged nine to eleven and then tracked substance use initiation through interviews every six months for three years. They measured 297 imaging-derived phenotypes, quantitative descriptors extracted from imaging such as the volume of a structure or the thickness of a cortical region, covering 68 cortical areas and 18 subcortical structures, and analyzed them with mixed-effects models that accounted for the many siblings and twins in the sample, applying stringent corrections for the number of tests performed.

By age fifteen, 3,460 children had initiated use, most commonly with alcohol. The anatomical differences that preceded initiation were not the ones the neurotoxicity account predicts. Children who later used substances had larger brains overall, with greater whole brain volume, greater cortical surface area, and larger subcortical structures, the opposite of the pattern seen in adults with established substance use disorders. Cortical thickness diverged by region: thinner cortex in frontal areas, most notably the rostral middle frontal gyrus, alongside thicker cortex in temporal, parietal, and occipital regions.

Cannabis initiation was specifically associated with a smaller right caudate nucleus, a structure central to habit formation and reward. Decisively for interpretation, when the analysis was restricted to children who were entirely substance-naive at the time of their baseline scan, 14 of 21 associations remained significant, meaning the anatomy predicted behavior that had not yet occurred (Miller et al., 2024). The frontal thinning was specific to the right rostral middle frontal gyrus.

The limits deserve equal weight. The study examined initiation rather than progression to problematic use, so it cannot say whether these features predict addiction as opposed to experimentation; statistical power was inadequate for nicotine and cannabis given how few children initiated them; and the design cannot date when the anatomical differences emerged or rule out unmeasured genetic and environmental influences. What it does establish is that the neuroimaging literature on substance use disorders has probably been conflating pre-existing vulnerability with drug-induced damage (Miller et al., 2024).

Inferring Frontal Vulnerability from the qEEG

Frontal cortical thinning, particularly in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex, is associated with the executive, impulse control, and decision-making deficits central to substance use disorder, and longitudinal and twin evidence indicates that this thinning can precede use rather than follow it (Cheetham et al., 2014; Ersche et al., 2012). Scalp EEG cannot measure cortical thickness, and no responsible clinician should tell a client that a qEEG shows thin cortex. What the qEEG can do is characterize the regulatory failure that such thinning would produce, and Ronald Swatzyna has identified several frequency-domain signatures worth examining in this population. Increased frontal theta from 4 to 7 Hz appears frequently in children and adolescents with attentional and executive dysfunction and may reflect maturational delay or hypofunction of frontal regulatory systems, with elevated frontal midline theta tracking poor impulse control (Clarke et al., 2001).

Reduced frontal alpha from 8 to 12 Hz suggests hypofunctional prefrontal networks and diminished inhibitory control. Excess frontal beta and high beta or gamma activity have been linked to cortical hyperexcitability and disinhibition in at-risk youth and to the impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, and sensation-seeking that raise risk (Barry et al., 2003; Rangaswamy et al., 2002). Frontal hypocoherence within frontal-frontal and frontal-parietal networks indicates impaired integration across the executive control system (Thatcher et al., 2005).

Swatzyna's clinical speculation about that last group is worth taking seriously: some children, adolescents, and adults may use substances specifically to quiet excessive fast-wave activity. If so, the low-alpha, high-beta hyperarousal pattern described earlier in this section is not simply a consequence of chronic use but may in some clients be the very state the substance was recruited to manage, which reframes what the training has to accomplish. Practically, these signatures argue against applying a single protocol to everyone who carries the diagnosis. A client whose qEEG shows excess frontal fast activity and hyperarousal is a candidate for protocols that quiet that activity, and the alpha-theta work that dominates this field is well matched to them. A client whose record instead shows elevated frontal theta, reduced frontal alpha, and frontal hypocoherence presents a picture closer to the executive dysfunction described in the ADHD section, which supports beginning with attention and connectivity training exactly as the Scott–Kaiser sequencing prescribes.

The developmental evidence also gives you something useful to say. Because vulnerability is measurable years before the first drink, the abnormalities you observe in a client's qEEG cannot all be attributed to what they have done to themselves, and telling them so is both accurate and clinically productive. Vulnerability is not destiny, in the same way that a family history of a disease is not a diagnosis, and the appropriate response to identified risk is more protection rather than resignation (Miller et al., 2024).

The Menninger and Peniston Protocols

The Menninger ON-OFF-ON EEG protocol teaches patients to increase the amplitude (power) of alpha or theta, reduce it, and then increase it again during 100- or 200-second segments. This approach may produce superior control compared to procedures that only train amplitude increases, because it demonstrates that the patient can move brain activity in both directions rather than just hoping it happens to change in the desired direction.

Importantly, temperature biofeedback and frontal SEMG (surface electromyography) biofeedback precede alpha-theta training. These preliminary sessions serve a crucial purpose: they teach patients the strategy of passive volition, sometimes called "allowing" rather than "trying." Active effort and straining actually interfere with alpha-theta training; patients must learn to let changes happen rather than force them. This counterintuitive skill must be established before the deeper alpha-theta work can succeed.

The Peniston addiction protocol is a comprehensive multimodal approach that incorporates both biofeedback and non-biofeedback components. Patients begin with systematic desensitization and visualization training, complete a temperature biofeedback phase of at least five sessions, and learn rhythmic breathing, autogenic exercises, and guided imagery. This preparation readies them for the alpha-theta training itself, which used an active electrode at O1 referenced to A1 and reinforced increases of theta and alpha band EEG. Distinguish the original trial from the protocol it generated: Peniston and Kulkosky (1989) used 15 thirty-minute alpha-theta sessions with 10 alcoholic patients per group, while the generalized protocol that later circulated under Peniston's name specifies 30 sessions.

The Scott–Kaiser protocol, also written Kaiser–Scott, starts with neurofeedback ADHD training (theta/beta training) and then progresses to the Peniston protocol, but uses a Pz placement for the active electrode. The rationale is that many substance abusers have underlying ADHD or attention problems that interfere with their ability to benefit from alpha-theta training.

Scott, Kaiser, Othmer, and Sideroff (2005) randomly assigned patients with mixed substance abuse to EEG biofeedback or a control group. Of those reassessed at 12 months, 36 of 47 experimental completers (77%) were abstinent compared with 12 of 27 controls (44%). Read that alongside its denominator: 74 of the original 121 participants contributed 12-month data, so this is a per-protocol rather than an intention-to-treat result, and because the training also improved retention, differential attrition is entangled with the abstinence outcome.

This video takes the viewer through an alpha-theta training demonstration using the Nexus/Biotrace system.

Clinical Efficacy

Estate M. Sokhadze and David Trudeau rated NFB for SUD as probably efficacious based on an RCT (N = 121) using the Scott–Kaiser NFB protocol.

The five other RCTs incorporated alpha and high beta regulation, alpha/theta with TEMP and guided imagery, SMR and beta upregulation with 1–13 Hz and high beta (18–22 Hz) suppression, SMR/theta followed by alpha-theta, and the Scott–Kaiser NFB protocol.

The Scott–Kaiser protocol, which starts with NF ADHD training and then progresses to the Peniston protocol, has improved retention and abstinence in these hard-to-treat populations. Participants increased abstinence, quality of life, self-efficacy, time in the program, and TOVA (continuous attention), and reduced addiction severity and craving.

The Scott–Kaiser modification of the Peniston Protocol can be classified as probably efficacious with residential or office-based rehabilitation and opioid replacement for alcohol, opioid, mixed-substance, and stimulant abusers.

Other protocols, such as theta/SMR, received a level-2 rating of possibly efficacious.

Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a neurological condition marked by recurrent, unprovoked seizures resulting from abnormal electrical activity in the brain. The International League Against Epilepsy classifies seizures first by where they begin, as focal, generalized, or unknown onset (Fisher et al., 2017), and focal seizures are the single most common type. Two generalized-onset types recur throughout the neurofeedback literature. Absence seizures, historically called petit mal, feature brief loss of consciousness without abnormal movement; the patient appears to be daydreaming. Tonic-clonic seizures, historically called grand mal, are generalized seizures with convulsions, featuring a cry, loss of consciousness, falling, and rhythmic jerking of all extremities. The older petit mal and grand mal labels persist in clinical conversation and in diagnostic coding but are not part of the current classification.

Demographics

Active epilepsy affects approximately 1.1% of U.S. adults, about 2.9 million people, and roughly 456,000 children, for a national total near 3.4 million (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024; Kobau, Luncheon, & Greenlund, 2023). The World Health Organization (2024) reports that around 50 million people worldwide have epilepsy, making it one of the most common neurological diseases globally. About 1.5 million community-dwelling U.S. adults with active epilepsy reported uncontrolled seizures in the past 12 months (Kobau, Luncheon, & Greenlund, 2024), highlighting the need for additional therapeutic approaches.

Neurophysiological Basis

The sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) is an EEG rhythm conventionally defined as 12-15 Hz, with a spectral peak around 12-14 Hz, located over the sensorimotor cortex. SMR is associated with inhibition of movement and reduced muscle tone. When Barry Sterman was researching sleep in cats in the 1960s, he discovered that cats trained to increase SMR were remarkably resistant to seizure-inducing compounds. This serendipitous finding led to the development of SMR up-training for epilepsy in humans.

Sterman's protocol trains epileptic patients to increase SMR (12-14 Hz) amplitude and duration at sites such as C3, Cz and C4 on the brain’s central strip, while suppressing theta (slow-wave activity), high beta (fast activity associated with tension), epileptiform spikes, and EMG artifact during 36 sessions. The training essentially strengthens the brain's natural inhibitory mechanisms.

Sterman (2000) summarized the accumulated SMR literature and found that 82% of 174 patients whose seizures were otherwise uncontrolled achieved clinically significant improvement, defined as at least a 50% reduction in seizure incidence, with about 5% reporting no seizures for up to a year after training ended (Sterman & Egner, 2006). Reviewing the same body of work later, Sterman (2010) put the totals at 24 studies and 243 patients with the same 82% figure, so treat the study and patient counts as approximate. An independent meta-analysis of 10 studies selected from 63 by Tan and colleagues (2009) reached a convergent conclusion: 79% of patients trained with SMR feedback showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency despite a collective history of failed medication.

Slow Cortical Potential Training for Epilepsy

Ute Strehl pioneered the use of slow cortical potential training for epilepsy (Strehl et al., 2014). As with the SCP protocol for ADHD, the electrode site is Cz and clients are trained to alternately increase and decrease slow cortical potential (Fumuro et al., 2025).

Clinical Efficacy

Lauren Frey rated SMR-based and SCP-based neurofeedback as level 4, efficacious for seizures. SMR neurofeedback improves seizure control by enhancing functional connectivity across the brain (Frey, 2023).

Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 includes a number of diagnoses under the rubric of anxiety disorders. These include simple phobia, social anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, selective mutism and separation anxiety. However, a more contemporary transdiagnostic perspective points to the appearance of anxiety in a variety of diagnosed conditions as well as sub-clinical anxiety as seen in stress and worry in generally healthy individuals. A meta-analysis by Russo and colleagues (2022) gives U.S. lifetime prevalence estimates of approximately 12% for specific phobia, 12% for social phobia, 9% for separation anxiety, 6% for generalized anxiety disorder, and 5% for panic disorder. Anxiety disorders commonly emerge in childhood or adolescence, often persist into adulthood, and are more prevalent in women.

Rather than an invariable biomarker of anxiety such as frontal spindling beta or excessive posterior beta amplitude, current research emphasizes dysregulation of brain networks including the executive control, salience, and default mode networks, and their interaction. A dysregulation often commented on is that between prefrontal executive function sites and the amygdala, the relative activation of right and left prefrontal regions, and the balance between slow and fast EEG oscillations. Issues of elevated threat perception, withdrawal, and negative affect are often highlighted. Consequently, a variety of EEG neurofeedback protocols have been studied. At this time, studies are few in number, with diverse conditions and somewhat mixed outcomes. This section highlights several promising neurofeedback protocols rather than providing an exhaustive review.

Social Anxiety Disorder

Abbasi and colleagues (2018) randomly assigned adults with social anxiety to either EEG neurofeedback or to cognitive behavior therapy in a pre-post experimental design. Neurofeedback aimed to increase alpha and theta frequencies at Pz with eyes closed. Both groups showed equivalent reductions of social anxiety.

Anxiety and Stress

Mennella and associates (2017) randomized healthy women in a pre-post study to either frontal alpha asymmetry neurofeedback at F3 and F4, or to an active control group that received neurofeedback to increase alpha amplitude at Fz. Alpha asymmetry neurofeedback increased right frontal alpha activity and was correlated with reductions in negative affect and anxiety. Only the alpha asymmetry group showed reductions in negative affect and anxiety. Neither group showed changes in positive affect.

Liu and colleagues (2022) also studied healthy participants by comparing neurofeedback at C3 to increase SMR activity versus pseudofeedback that randomized the participants and measured SMR learning and self-reported anxiety on a standardized measure. Only the SMR group showed SMR learning. The SMR group also showed decreased anxiety, where the amount of decrease was correlated with the amount of SMR learning.

Dinc and associates (2025) randomly assigned adults with significant anxiety symptoms to eyes-closed alpha/theta neurofeedback at Pz or simulated neurofeedback lasting nine 20-minute sessions. Both groups showed significantly reduced anxiety by the end of training, but the alpha/theta activity group showed significantly greater reductions than the group receiving simulated feedback. Both groups showed significantly reduced negative affect, with a trend toward the alpha/theta group’s reduction being greater. Neither group showed changes in positive affect. Measures of the alpha/theta ratio did not change significantly.

Clinical Efficacy of Neurofeedback for Anxiety Disorders

Taken together, the literature is promising but not yet definitive. The most optimistic quantitative evidence comes from Russo and colleagues’ (2022) meta-analysis of 26 studies. Anxiety-spectrum outcomes improved by almost one standard deviation, but this finding lumps all anxiety spectrum conditions together and includes PTSD. There does not appear to be a protocol that is uniformly effective for all anxiety conditions. Neurofeedback for diagnosed social anxiety that uses eyes-closed alpha/theta training at Pz was as effective as cognitive behavior therapy in one study (Abbasi et al., 2018). A variety of protocols such as those for frontal alpha asymmetry, C3 SMR uptraining, and Pz alpha/theta appear efficacious in small studies for symptoms of anxiety among adults who do not have a formal diagnosis.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurs in some individuals who have been exposed, directly or indirectly, to a sudden and extremely terrifying event that is perceived as life-threatening, threatens serious injury, or involves sexual violence (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Symptoms begin after the event but can sometimes emerge months later. They are tied to the traumatic event and include one or more of the following: recurrent distressing intrusive memories, recurrent distressing dreams, dissociative experiences, intense or prolonged distress when exposed to cues related to the event, and strong physiological reactions to internal or external cues related to the event.

The disturbance lasts more than one month and also involves negative changes in thinking and mood related to the event, as well as significant changes in arousal or reactivity. These symptoms cannot be attributed to a substance or medical condition, and they cause significant distress or impaired functioning in social, occupational, or other important areas. In the United States, the projected lifetime risk for PTSD at age 75 is 8.7%, and the 12-month prevalence among adults is about 3.5% (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Gold Standard Treatments for PTSD

The primary treatments for PTSD are trauma-focused forms of cognitive behavior therapy, including prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) (Department of Veterans Affairs & Department of Defense, 2023). Medications such as SSRI and SNRI antidepressants can also help. However, not everyone who receives treatment experiences much symptom reduction (Ehring et al., 2014; Varker et al., 2020), and PTSD treatments often have high dropout rates (Imel et al., 2013).

PTSD and the Brain

PTSD is associated with reduced power in the alpha band, for example in hubs of the default mode network (DMN) such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC, medial portions of BA 32 and adjacent medial aspects of BAs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24, and 25) and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC, BAs 23 and 31) (Clancy et al., 2020; Lanius et al., 2015). Among healthy individuals, higher alpha power is thought to represent resting wakefulness and cortical inhibition (reduced excitation), and it is positively correlated with default mode network activity. Individuals with PTSD are therefore likely to have overly excited brain activity given their reduced alpha production. Elevated beta power is a second EEG marker of PTSD (Jokić-Begić & Begić, 2003). Reduced alpha rhythms in PTSD are thought to reflect poor excitatory-inhibitory balance in the brain (Nicholson et al., 2023).

Functional connectivity abnormalities within the default mode and salience networks have also been observed in PTSD, and successful treatment leads to changes in these networks (Lanius et al., 2015). Alpha rhythms are a significant predictor of PTSD symptom severity (Zhang et al., 2020). Dysfunction of the default mode network is thought to relate to negative self-referential thinking, social cognition, bodily self-consciousness, and autobiographical memory. Dysfunction of the salience network is thought to relate to hyperarousal, hypervigilance, avoidance, and problems with interoception.

Neurofeedback for PTSD

Neurofeedback for PTSD has a long history, beginning with the alpha-theta protocol of Peniston and Kulkosky (1991), which increased both alpha and theta power with O1 as the training site. Subsequent studies have rewarded 10-13 Hz activity with a bipolar montage at T4-P4 (van der Kolk et al., 2016), and have used individualized LORETA z-score neurofeedback (Bell et al., 2019), infra-low frequency training (Winkeler et al., 2022), and real-time fMRI neurofeedback. Across EEG neurofeedback studies, randomized controlled investigations show a moderate effect size for reducing PTSD symptoms, which represents an important real-world improvement (Choi et al., 2023). Changes in neurophysiological measures such as EEG and fMRI signals also appear in most studies that measured them.

Landmark Study: Homeostatic Normalization of Alpha

A recent and very well-executed randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind study by Nicholson and colleagues (2023) downtrained alpha at Pz, which produced an alpha rebound. The authors hypothesize that the alpha rebound effect occurs because homeostatic self-tuning mechanisms regulate the balance of cortical excitation and inhibition (Ros et al., 2017). Three-month follow-up data were collected with qEEG, fMRI, structured clinical interviews, and standardized questionnaires.

Compared with neurotypical controls, participants with PTSD in the Nicholson study showed significantly reduced relative alpha power at baseline, with maximal differences in the dorsomedial prefrontal gyrus, especially in the right hemisphere (dmPFC; BAs 8, 9, and 10), and in the cuneus (BA 18). At baseline, participants with PTSD also showed greater relative delta power in the medial frontal gyrus (BA 8) and cuneus (BAs 17 and 18). They showed greater relative theta power in the posterior cerebellum and reduced relative theta power in the superior frontal gyrus (BAs 6 and 8). Beta power was greater globally, especially in the supplementary motor area (BA 6).

Compared with participants who received sham neurofeedback, only participants who received true neurofeedback showed significant reductions in questionnaire scores from pre- to post-neurofeedback and from pretreatment to the 3-month follow-up. At follow-up, 60% of those receiving neurofeedback no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD, compared with 33% of the sham controls. The remission rate in the neurofeedback group was consistent with rates seen in gold standard treatments for PTSD. There were no dropouts from the neurofeedback group, suggesting that the training was tolerable and safe.

Only the participants who received neurofeedback showed an increase in relative alpha power from pre- to post-treatment, and the increase was localized to the medial prefrontal gyrus. Alpha power that was deficient before training in the dorsomedial prefrontal gyrus, the anterior hub of the default mode network, normalized only in the neurofeedback group, that is, in neural circuitry consistently implicated in PTSD. During the training sessions, only the neurofeedback group showed an initial decrease in relative alpha power that gradually returned to baseline levels. Nicholson and colleagues (2023) interpreted this pattern as a homeostatic rebound.

Clinical Efficacy

Donald Moss, Fred Shaffer, and Matthew Watkins rated neurofeedback for PTSD as level 4, efficacious in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.; Moss et al., 2023).

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a typically chronic psychiatric disorder characterized by obsessions, which are recurrent, intrusive, unwanted thoughts, images, or urges, and/or compulsions, which are repetitive behaviors or mental acts performed in response to obsessions or according to rigid rules. The symptoms are time-consuming or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). OCD commonly begins during adolescence or early adulthood and frequently co-occurs with anxiety, depressive, and other psychiatric disorders.

Demographics

Epidemiological estimates vary with diagnostic criteria and sampling methods. In the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey Replication, lifetime prevalence was approximately 2.3% and 12-month prevalence was 1.2%, with about half of 12-month cases associated with serious functional impairment (Ruscio et al., 2010). A recent systematic review and modeling study of 112 studies estimated global lifetime prevalence at approximately 2.3% using DSM-IV criteria and 3.2% using DSM-5 criteria, illustrating the influence of diagnostic definitions on prevalence estimates (Jeong et al., 2026). Prevalence rises sharply during adolescence and peaks in the late twenties to early thirties.

OCD, the Brain, and the EEG

OCD is increasingly understood as a disorder of distributed brain circuits rather than a lesion or abnormality of a single structure. The most consistently implicated systems are cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits, particularly connections among the orbitofrontal and medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, striatum, and thalamus, together with the broader salience, default mode, frontoparietal, sensorimotor, limbic, and cerebellar networks (Bijanki et al., 2021; van den Heuvel et al., 2016). Diffusion tensor imaging studies add evidence of white matter abnormalities in the tracts that connect these regions (Piras et al., 2013; Szeszko et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2021), and the ENIGMA consortium has mapped subtle cortical and subcortical asymmetries in OCD (Kong et al., 2020). EEG findings complement this model by showing abnormalities in frontal oscillatory activity, functional connectivity, and especially performance and error monitoring.

The most reproducible EEG finding in OCD is an enhanced error-related negativity (ERN), a frontocentral event-related potential that occurs shortly after a person makes an error and that is generated primarily within medial frontal circuitry, particularly the anterior cingulate cortex (Riesel, 2019). Resting quantitative EEG findings are less uniform. A comprehensive systematic review of 65 EEG studies identified frontal slowing, altered frontal asymmetry, and enhanced error-related negativity as the most consistent abnormalities (Perera et al., 2019).

Taken together, a plausible model is that OCD involves abnormal monitoring of errors and threats, excessive salience assigned to internally generated concerns, difficulty updating the perceived significance of an error or threat after corrective action, and impaired transition between habitual and goal-directed behavioral control. From a neurofeedback perspective, four findings stand out.

1. Enhanced frontocentral error-related negativity and anterior cingulate cortex activity is arguably the most reproducible EEG abnormality in OCD.
2. Resting EEG studies suggest frontal slowing and altered frontal asymmetry, although these findings are substantially less consistent than the error-related negativity.
3. EEG connectivity studies suggest abnormalities, particularly in alpha and delta network connectivity, but replication is still limited.
4. Imaging studies provide a rationale for investigating regulation of medial frontal, anterior cingulate, orbitofrontal, frontoparietal, sensorimotor, and cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical network function, but they do not yet justify a single standardized scalp-frequency protocol for OCD.

Neurofeedback for OCD

At present, there is no empirically established "OCD neurofeedback protocol," and this is one of the principal weaknesses of the literature. Hammond (2003, 2004) and Sürmeli and Ertem (2011) used qEEG-personalized protocols, changing electrode sites and frequency targets according to individual abnormalities. Kopřivová and colleagues (2013) used a considerably more sophisticated individualized strategy based on independent component analysis, generally downtraining abnormal 3-8 Hz or 13-16 Hz activity in components localized to frontal, anterior cingulate, and insular regions. Deng and colleagues (2014), by contrast, used broader training involving alpha, theta, and SMR.

Three reviews and meta-analyses have examined neurofeedback and biofeedback for OCD (Ferreira et al., 2019; Zafarmand et al., 2022), with the publication by Zhang and colleagues (2026) being the most recent. They characterize neurofeedback for OCD as a preliminary method that might possibly provide symptom benefit. Limitations include small samples, variable protocols, heterogeneous or absent control conditions, inconsistent blinding and follow-up, and weak evidence connecting successful neural self-regulation to clinical improvement.

Key Study

Yazdi-Ravandi and colleagues (2026) conducted a randomized controlled trial with OCD patients that compared neurofeedback plus medication to two control groups: sham neurofeedback plus medication and medication alone. The protocol was based on the finding of excess high beta at F7 and F8 in the patients compared with a healthy sample. Neurofeedback was therefore aimed at inhibiting high beta at F7 and F8, lateral prefrontal sites that are relevant to OCD. The group receiving real neurofeedback showed significantly greater improvement than both control groups, which did not differ from each other.

Clinical Efficacy

Neurofeedback for OCD is probably efficacious based on three RCTs by the Kopřivová (2013), Deng (2014), and Yazdi-Ravandi (2026) groups, together with the qEEG-guided feedback studies by Hammond (2003, 2004) and Sürmeli and Ertem (2011).

Depression

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is more than just feeling sad. It is defined by persistent sadness, loss of interest or pleasure in activities that used to be enjoyable, and feelings of guilt or low self-worth, along with disturbed appetite and sleep, difficulty concentrating, and in severe cases, suicidal ideation.

Neurophysiological Basis

Richard Davidson proposed the theory of frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA) as a neurophysiological marker for depression (Davidson, 1992). The behavioral activation system (BAS), mediated primarily by the left frontal cortex, drives approach behavior and positive emotions. The behavioral inhibition system (BIS), mediated by the right frontal cortex, drives withdrawal motivation and negative affect.

Depression is associated with reduced left frontal activity relative to right frontal activity, reflecting diminished approach motivation and positive affect. The depressed brain shows the signature of withdrawal. Here is a crucial point that initially seems counterintuitive: because alpha power is inversely related to cortical activity (more alpha means less activity), the depressive signature is elevated left frontal alpha. The asymmetry is conventionally scored as the natural log of right alpha minus the natural log of left alpha, so depressed individuals score negative, and the score can be moved in the healthy direction either by reducing left alpha, which raises left activity, or by raising right alpha, which lowers right activity. Alpha asymmetry protocols have used both routes (Baehr et al., 1997).

Beyond Frontal Asymmetry: The Enlarged Salience Network

Frontal alpha asymmetry describes a functional imbalance. A recent line of work suggests that depression also involves a difference in how much cortex is allocated to a particular network in the first place. Depression is episodic, with periods of illness alternating with periods of wellness, and that fluctuation has historically frustrated efforts to identify stable brain differences, because any snapshot might capture a person mid-episode or mid-recovery. Lynch and colleagues (2024), publishing in Nature, solved that problem with precision functional mapping (PFM), an approach that collects a very large volume of functional magnetic resonance imaging data from the same individual across time so that brain organization can be estimated for that person rather than averaged across a group. More than 140 people with major depressive disorder and 37 healthy controls were scanned repeatedly over 1.5 years, some as many as 62 times.

The frontostriatal salience network, which links frontal cortex with the striatum and determines which stimuli are flagged as important enough to capture attention and which rewards are worth pursuing, was nearly twice as large in participants with depression. That expansion was stable over time, unrelated to symptom severity, and did not track mood state; the network occupied about 73% more cortical surface than in controls, which the authors describe as a nearly twofold expansion. Connectivity within the network behaved very differently. Coupling between the nucleus accumbens and anterior cingulate tracked fluctuations in anhedonia, and in one densely sampled participant it forecast anhedonia severity roughly a week ahead, a single-case finding that did not replicate in the second such participant. Extending the analysis to less frequently scanned cohorts, the team found the same enlarged network in children scanned at ages 10 and 12 who had no depression history but developed clinically significant symptoms at 13 or 14 (Lynch et al., 2024; Schimmelpfennig et al., 2023).

The clinically useful idea here is the separation of a trait marker, a stable characteristic that indicates vulnerability, from a state marker, a measure that rises and falls with the current episode. Network size behaved as a trait marker and network activity as a state marker, and confusing the two is a common source of frustration in neurofeedback practice. Frontal alpha asymmetry has substantial trait-like variance of its own, which is one reason an asymmetry score can look stubbornly unchanged while a client's mood clearly improves, or can shift without any corresponding clinical benefit. The practical response is to decide in advance which role each of your measures is playing: use symptom scales, behavioral activation logs, and state-sensitive physiological measures such as heart rate variability for weekly tracking, and reserve the qEEG or asymmetry index for pre-treatment formulation and periodic re-evaluation rather than session-to-session decision-making. The finding that reduced salience network activity forecast an episode a week ahead also points toward a use of monitoring that neurofeedback clinicians rarely exploit, which is early detection of deterioration and a scheduled booster contact before relapse becomes established.

Frontoamygdalar Connectivity and Treatment Response

Depression treatment fails often enough that predicting response has become a research priority in its own right. Only about 70% of depressed youth respond to a first-line treatment, and between 40% and 60% fail to achieve remission afterward (Kung et al., 2023). Kung and colleagues (2023) asked whether the pathway that supports emotion regulation could distinguish who is depressed and who will improve. They scanned 107 youths with moderate to severe depression and 94 healthy controls during a cognitive reappraisal task, in which participants deliberately reinterpret an emotionally distressing image in order to reduce its impact, and analyzed the data with dynamic causal modeling (DCM), a method that estimates effective connectivity, meaning the directional influence one region exerts over another, rather than the simple correlation captured by functional connectivity.

Controls used reappraisal more effectively than depressed participants. Stronger inhibitory connections running from ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to the amygdala, the structure that assigns emotional salience and drives the reactivity depressed clients struggle to dampen, were associated with a lower likelihood of carrying a depression diagnosis; depressed youths showed weaker inhibitory modulation of that pathway during reappraisal. Weaker excitatory ventromedial prefrontal-to-amygdala connectivity at baseline was associated with posttreatment remission, although that effect did not predict remission for individual participants (Kung et al., 2023). The direction of influence is the point: what separates depressed from non-depressed youth, and responders from non-responders, is how effectively the frontal cortex exerts downward control over limbic reactivity.

Three implications follow for practice. The first is that the mechanism is the same top-down regulation deficit described in the ADHD section of this unit, which argues for treating emotion regulation as a training target in its own right rather than as a symptom expected to resolve once mood lifts. The second concerns how you probe it: connectivity differences appeared during an active reappraisal task, not at rest, echoing the ICAN finding that clinically meaningful change surfaced during cognitive challenge rather than in the resting spectrum. Building a brief emotion-regulation challenge into your assessment battery, in which the client views mildly distressing material and is asked to reinterpret it while you record, gives you a functional probe that a resting baseline cannot supply. The third is that coaching matters. Because reappraisal is the behavioral expression of the frontal-to-amygdala pathway, explicitly teaching reappraisal as the client's in-session and between-session strategy trains the same circuit the imaging identifies, which is also the strongest argument for pairing neurofeedback with cognitive-behavioral work rather than delivering it in isolation.

Demographics

According to the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2021-2023), depression prevalence in the past two weeks was 13.1% among adolescents and adults aged 12 and older (Brody & Hughes, 2025). Depression prevalence is highest among adolescents aged 12-19, with 26.5% of adolescent females reporting symptoms. Roughly 21% of U.S. adults will experience major depressive disorder at some point in their lifetime, with a 12-month prevalence near 10% (Hasin et al., 2018).

Clinical Efficacy

Based on 10 RCTs, Zachary Meehan, Fred Shaffer, and Christopher Zerr rated biofeedback and neurofeedback for MDD as efficacious and specific in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.).

Both alpha asymmetry neurofeedback and HRV biofeedback have demonstrated efficacy for depression. Alpha asymmetry neurofeedback as described in the classic Baehr and colleagues (1999) report provides feedback to reward increase of the ratio (R – L) / (R + L) where R is alpha activity at F4 and L is alpha activity at F3. Hammond (2005) also reported a two-channel protocol to indirectly decrease left frontal alpha by reinforcing 15-18 Hz and inhibiting slow alpha and theta at both Fp1 and F3 for 20 minutes, followed by decreasing the reinforced band to 12-15 Hz during the final 10 minutes of a session. Infra-low frequency training has also been used, as seen in three case studies (Grin-Yatsenko et al., 2018). Meta-analysis found an effect size of g = 0.38 for HRV biofeedback in reducing depressive symptoms, which the authors describe as medium and as comparable to broadly applied approaches such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (Pizzoli et al., 2021). Under Cohen's conventions 0.38 sits between small and medium, and the analysis reported a prediction interval spanning zero, so a future trial could find no effect.

Positioning Neurofeedback Within a Combined Treatment Plan

Knowing that a modality works says little about where it belongs in a multi-component treatment or a sequence of treatments. Because it is a condition that has been studied for many years with various multi-component treatments, depression is a good condition for which to investigate whether multi-modal treatments outperform unimodal care. Cuijpers and colleagues (2021) conducted a network meta-analysis, a technique that compares multiple treatments simultaneously by combining direct and indirect evidence, drawing on 58 studies and 9,301 patients treated in primary care settings where most depression is actually managed. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, the use of medication to treat a mental health condition, each outperformed usual care and waitlist control, confirming that active intervention beats watchful waiting.

Compared directly against one another, however, they did not differ significantly, which means psychotherapy alone is a defensible first choice for many patients. Combination therapy pairing psychotherapy with medication might be better than either alone, which is the hedged conclusion the authors themselves draw rather than a demonstrated superiority. Cognitive behavioral therapy performed well both as a standalone treatment and as a component of combined care. Follow-up data in this review were too sparse to support conclusions about long-term relapse, the return of depressive symptoms after a period of improvement; the evidence that psychological treatment lowers relapse risk during antidepressant discontinuation comes from the separate relapse-prevention literature rather than from this analysis (Cuijpers et al., 2021).

Read alongside the efficacy ratings above, this evidence positions neurofeedback and HRV biofeedback much as it positions psychotherapy: as active treatments that hold their own against medication in milder presentations and that contribute most when combined rather than substituted. For a client with mild depression who prefers a non-pharmacological approach, alpha asymmetry training combined with HRV biofeedback, behavioral activation, and lifestyle change is a reasonable primary plan. For moderate to severe depression, positioning training as a replacement for combined care is not supportable, and doing so risks the outcome the meta-analysis argues hardest against. The most defensible clinical niche may be the discontinuation window. When a client tapers an antidepressant, relapse risk rises and structured psychological support demonstrably lowers it; a continuing schedule of training sessions, a maintained home HRV biofeedback practice, and rehearsed cognitive-behavioral skills all belong in that period, coordinated explicitly with the prescriber rather than arranged around them. Direct communication between the prescriber and the biofeedback clinician prevents conflicting recommendations, allows proactive adjustment when side effects or perceived non-improvement threaten adherence, and preserves the client's trust in a plan that involves more than one provider (Cuijpers et al., 2021).

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

According to the American Psychiatric Association (2013), children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) show two core characteristics. The first is persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple situations, and the second is restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025) reports that about 1 in 31 children aged 8 years, or 3.2%, has been identified with ASD. ASD occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and is over three times as common among boys as among girls.

Neurophysiology

The neurophysiology of ASD points toward atypical developmental regulation of distributed neural systems rather than a unitary electrophysiological abnormality. ASD likely involves alterations in synaptic development and plasticity, excitatory-inhibitory regulation, oscillatory dynamics, sensory processing, and the coordination of local and large-scale networks (Milovanovic & Grujicic, 2021). EEG findings commonly include abnormalities in theta, alpha, and beta/gamma power, oscillatory synchronization, connectivity, and evoked responses, with increased epileptiform activity in a clinically important subgroup. Wang and colleagues (2013) described a U-shaped profile of spectral power, with elevated power in both the lower and higher frequency bands and reduced power in the intermediate frequencies. Alterations have also been reported in the default mode network, salience network, frontoparietal control network, and sensory networks.

Heterogeneity is especially important when interpreting EEG neurofeedback studies in ASD. A finding that a particular frequency band is abnormal on average in ASD does not establish that it should automatically be increased or suppressed in an individual client. Individual EEG phenotype, developmental stage, recording conditions, and clinical presentation matter substantially.

Neurofeedback Protocols for ASD

A variety of neurofeedback protocols have been investigated for ASD. These include feedback to decrease mu rhythm power and coherence over the right sensorimotor cortex (Pineda et al., 2008) and mu training at Fpz (X.-N. Wang et al., 2024), feedback to downregulate excess delta and theta at FCz or Cz (Kouijzer et al., 2009, 2010, 2013), qEEG-guided coherence training (Coben & Padolsky, 2007), frontocentral slow cortical potential training (Konicar et al., 2021), and feedback based on individually calculated alpha bands and aperiodic activity (Y. Li et al., 2026). Both the Othmer infra-low frequency method (Rauter et al., 2022) and the Smith infra-slow fluctuation method (Smith et al., 2017) have also been reported in successful case studies.

Landmark Studies

Several randomized controlled studies have investigated neurofeedback aimed at suppressing the mu rhythm, at C4 by teams led by Pineda (2008) and LaMarca (2023), and at Fpz by X.-N. Wang and colleagues (2024). The Pineda and Wang groups used sham neurofeedback controls. Pineda's group reported changes in both the mu rhythm and ASD-related behavior, while Wang's group reported behavioral changes without reporting EEG changes. In their RCT, Kouijzer and colleagues (2013) found no change in core ASD symptoms; only participants who learned to regulate their EEG showed improved cognitive flexibility.

Konicar and colleagues (2021) conducted a randomized study of slow cortical potential training that showed improvement in core symptoms of ASD that was somewhat superior to the improvement in control participants. Coben and Padolsky's (2007) study of qEEG-guided coherence training showed large decreases in coherence anomalies and in core ASD symptoms compared with a matched wait-list group.

Clinical Efficacy

Estate Sokhadze reviewed studies of neurofeedback for ASD in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.) and rated it probably efficacious (Sokhadze, 2023). As with several other conditions for which neurofeedback is used, there is more than one protocol and a small total sample size, although mu rhythm training has received the most investigation.

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is a specific neurodevelopmental learning disability that makes reading, writing, and spelling difficult (Cleveland Clinic, 2026). Dyslexia varies in severity, with corresponding differences in its impact on school, work, and day-to-day functioning. The condition is not the result of limited educational opportunity, sensory or motor dysfunction, intellectual deficits, or socioeconomic disadvantage, and it does not represent a loss of ability after reading skills have already been acquired. Associated cognitive deficits may include phonological awareness, short-term verbal memory, visual-auditory association, and rapid naming (López-Zamora et al., 2026).

Developmental dyslexia affects roughly 1 in 14 people worldwide, about 7%, regardless of sex or race (Cleveland Clinic, 2026). Assessment and diagnosis of dyslexia are performed by a trained health professional. Treatment may involve educational methods that train reading and related skills, provided by a speech-language pathologist, teacher, or educational specialist.

What Does the Dyslexic Brain Look Like?

López-Zamora and colleagues (2026) reviewed differences in cerebral activation seen in fMRI studies of dyslexia, which are localized to the left posterior temporoparietal cortex, the left occipitotemporal cortex, and the left frontal cortex. Cainelli and colleagues (2023) reviewed EEG findings in dyslexia and noted that the resting EEG abnormalities are excess delta and theta and deficient alpha activity. These abnormalities are not especially well localized, but delta excess often appears in frontocentral regions and alpha deficits in temporo-occipital regions, and differences in high beta are rarely reported. López-Zamora and colleagues (2026) also note that increased delta amplitude appears in the left frontal region during phonological tasks.

A meta-analysis of fMRI studies found consistent activation changes in dyslexic participants following reading intervention, localized to the left thalamus, the right insula and inferior frontal cortex, the left inferior frontal cortex, the right posterior cingulate, and the left middle occipital gyrus (Barquero et al., 2014). These findings suggest that neuromodulation of these brain structures may influence dyslexia. However, a recurring theme of this research is that brain findings are heterogeneous.

Neurofeedback for Dyslexia

Two systematic reviews of neurofeedback for dyslexia have been conducted, one by López-Zamora and associates (2026) and one by Joveini and colleagues (2024). They cover four types of neurofeedback protocol: reducing theta while increasing mid-beta, reducing theta while increasing alpha, increasing the sensorimotor rhythm, and qEEG-guided training. Early clinical series had already reported qEEG-guided remediation in consecutive dyslexic patients (Walker & Norman, 2006) and EEG source changes after theta/alpha training in learning-disabled children (Fernández et al., 2007, 2016).

Breteler and associates (2010) randomized participants to reading and spelling counseling with or without qEEG-guided neurofeedback and found that adding neurofeedback produced better results for spelling but not for reading. Coben and his team (2015) randomized dyslexic children to receive coherence neurofeedback plus resource room reading support or resource room support alone. Neurofeedback involved two-channel coherence training over the left hemisphere, with bands and sites determined by qEEG pre-assessment. Reading scores improved only for the neurofeedback plus resource room group.

Albarrán-Cárdenas and colleagues (2023) randomly assigned children with reading disorders to neurofeedback aimed at downtraining the theta/alpha ratio at the 10-20 site with the greatest baseline value or to sham neurofeedback. Increased reading accuracy and comprehension were seen only in the neurofeedback group. Eroğlu and associates (2022) randomly assigned students with dyslexia to neurofeedback or special education. The neurofeedback was provided by a mobile app that incorporated multisensory learning principles, downtraining theta at Broca's and Wernicke's areas when amplitude exceeded the norm, and at whichever of 12 other recording sites showed the highest theta amplitude on the left and on the right. Reading comprehension improved most in the neurofeedback group.

Clinical Efficacy

The AAPB efficacy levels described by Khazan and colleagues (2023) can be applied to the question of whether neurofeedback benefits developmental dyslexia, based on studies that include measures of reading, writing, spelling, or other reading-related variables. Neurofeedback that inhibits delta and theta and rewards SMR or 15-18 Hz beta in left frontotemporal regions has been studied in multiple RCTs, showing outcomes equal or superior to typical treatments on measures of dyslexia-related performance deficits. However, the more conservative label of probably efficacious is appropriate because of the limitations noted below. Left-sided coherence training based on qEEG findings is possibly efficacious. When these neurofeedback methods are delivered together with specific training to remediate the symptoms of dyslexia, the incremental effect of neurofeedback probably merits a rating of efficacious within the AAPB hierarchy.

Notable limitations of the existing studies include relatively small numbers of participants, inconsistent neurofeedback methods and dyslexia measures, the absence of multicenter replications of identical neurofeedback methods, modest effect sizes, and a lack of follow-up studies.

Sleep and Insomnia

Insomnia is a common sleep disorder characterized by persistent difficulty initiating sleep, maintaining sleep, or returning to sleep after waking too early, despite adequate opportunity and circumstances for sleep. Importantly, the sleep disturbance must produce clinically significant daytime consequences, such as fatigue, impaired concentration or memory, mood disturbance, reduced motivation, or impaired social or occupational functioning. Chronic insomnia disorder generally requires symptoms on at least three nights per week for at least three months (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Demographics

Insomnia symptoms are substantially more common than the full disorder. Approximately 30% to 50% of adults report occasional or short-term insomnia symptoms, whereas estimates for chronic insomnia disorder have traditionally been about 5% to 10% (Roth, 2007). A recent meta-analysis using more rigorous diagnostic methods found a pooled prevalence of 12.4% when insomnia disorder was established by diagnostic interview, illustrating how prevalence varies with assessment methodology (van Straten et al., 2025). Insomnia occurs across the lifespan but is more prevalent among women, middle-aged and older adults, shift workers, and individuals with medical or psychiatric conditions.

Insomnia as a Transdiagnostic Process

Historically, insomnia occurring without another identifiable disorder was termed primary insomnia, whereas sleep disturbance accompanying another psychiatric or medical disorder was often called secondary insomnia. Contemporary diagnostic systems have largely abandoned this distinction because insomnia frequently develops a course partly independent of the condition with which it co-occurs. Thus, insomnia disorder may occur by itself or comorbidly with another disorder, and both conditions may warrant treatment (Taylor & Pruiksma, 2014).

Psychiatric comorbidity is particularly common, with estimates suggesting that roughly 40% to 50% of people with insomnia have a co-occurring psychiatric disorder. Insomnia is especially prevalent in major depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. A recent systematic review reported clinically significant insomnia symptoms in approximately 70% to 80% of individuals with anxiety or anxiety-related disorders, and a meta-analysis summarized in that review estimated insomnia prevalence at approximately 63% in PTSD (Palagini et al., 2024).

The relationship is bidirectional rather than simply symptomatic: insomnia may precede psychiatric illness and independently increase its subsequent risk. A meta-analysis of prospective studies found that insomnia predicted later depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, and psychosis (Hertenstein et al., 2019). These findings support the contemporary view of insomnia as an important disorder in its own right and also as a transdiagnostic process that interacts reciprocally with mental health conditions.

Psychophysiology and the Brain in Insomnia

Chronic insomnia is increasingly conceptualized as a disorder of persistent hyperarousal that extends across both sleep and wakefulness rather than simply a failure to generate sleep (Dressle & Riemann, 2023). Physiologically, the most consistent finding is cortical hyperarousal, reflected in the quantitative EEG by increased high-frequency beta and gamma activity during sleep, together with abnormalities in sleep microstructure, including greater sleep instability and microarousals (Carpi & Liguori, 2025; Zhao et al., 2021). These findings suggest incomplete disengagement of wake-promoting neural activity during sleep.

Neuroendocrine studies also indicate dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, with meta-analytic evidence showing moderately elevated cortisol concentrations in people with chronic insomnia (Dressle et al., 2022). Neuroimaging studies further identify altered activity and functional connectivity within networks involved in arousal, emotion, cognition, and sleep-wake regulation, although individual findings are heterogeneous (Aquino et al., 2024). Evidence for autonomic hyperarousal, including consistently elevated heart rate or reduced heart rate variability, is less robust than the EEG and neuroendocrine evidence. Taken together, these findings support a model in which chronic insomnia involves an imbalance between wake-promoting and sleep-promoting systems, producing persistent cortical, neuroendocrine, and cognitive-emotional activation that interferes with the normal transition from wakefulness to stable sleep.

Neurofeedback and Other Treatments for Insomnia

Insomnia is often treated with medications such as low-dose tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline), nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics such as eszopiclone, orexin receptor antagonists such as lemborexant, melatonin receptor agonists such as ramelteon, or, less often, benzodiazepines such as temazepam (Sateia et al., 2017). Cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is also an effective treatment and is the recommended first-line approach (Edinger et al., 2021).

Garcia (2023) reviewed biofeedback and neurofeedback for insomnia in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.). Approaches have included EMG biofeedback for frontalis muscle activity, C3 or Cz neurofeedback to increase SMR and inhibit theta and 20-30 Hz beta, combinations of EMG and SMR feedback, inhibition of 18-30 Hz beta at F3 and F7, and qEEG-guided neurofeedback. The most studied neurofeedback protocol aims to increase SMR on the central strip, often with inhibition of theta and high beta. Five such studies used randomized controlled designs.

Three of these studies compared SMR neurofeedback with a credible treatment control and found equal or better outcomes for neurofeedback. Two studies compared SMR training with sham neurofeedback. SMR training outperformed sham training in one of these two studies but produced improvements that equaled sham training in the other. Garcia (2023) concluded that biofeedback and neurofeedback are probably efficacious for insomnia.

A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Recio-Rodriguez and colleagues (2024) also included studies that used alpha neurofeedback on the central strip for insomnia in patients with remitted anxiety or depression, and alpha/theta neurofeedback for PTSD. In both of those studies, aspects of sleep improved. The pooled analysis of seven RCTs, however, did not favor neurofeedback over control conditions on self-reported sleep quality, which tempers enthusiasm and underscores the need for larger trials. A pair of studies used alpha neurofeedback, one at Fp1 and another at bilateral central sites.

Key Studies

Uptraining SMR along the central strip is the most frequently replicated protocol. A good example is the study by Cortoos and colleagues (2010). They randomized 17 patients with insomnia to either SMR training that rewarded 12-15 Hz and inhibited 4-8 Hz at Cz or to EMG feedback from the frontalis muscle, and collected polysomnography and questionnaire measures. The neurofeedback group showed greater improvement in objective and questionnaire sleep measures than the EMG group.

Kwan and colleagues (2022) compared neurofeedback to increase 12-15 Hz (sigma activity) and decrease 18-30 Hz at F3 and F7 against CBT-I in a pilot study that randomized 17 patients between the two groups. Both groups showed significantly improved questionnaire scores. The neurofeedback group also showed reduced beta activity, consistent with lowered cortical arousal.

Lu and associates (2025) studied how alpha neurofeedback affected insomnia among patients whose anxiety or depression had remitted. Thirty-two participants were randomly assigned to alpha neurofeedback at bilateral central sites or to a sham neurofeedback group. Actigraphy and questionnaire measures were collected before and after training and at follow-up 3 and 6 months later. Objective sleep measures changed little, but self-reported sleep showed more durable improvement in the alpha neurofeedback group than in the sham group. Alpha amplitude increased only in the group that received true neurofeedback.

Clinical Efficacy

Garcia's (2023) conclusion that neurofeedback is probably efficacious for insomnia remains reasonable after review of more recent studies, and it applies particularly to SMR training.

Pain and Headache

Pain can occur in many locations, follow many patterns, and arise from varied causes. The brain plays a role in all forms of pain as the organ that supports the conscious perception of pain (Ahmad & Abdul Aziz, 2014). Pain is produced by distributed central nervous system (CNS) systems rather than a single "pain center." Nociceptive information enters the spinal dorsal horn and ascends through pathways to brainstem and thalamic structures, which distribute information to cortical and subcortical regions (van Strien & Hollmann, 2025).

The primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (S1 and S2) contribute to pain location, intensity, and quality, while the insula and anterior and midcingulate cortices contribute to interoception, unpleasantness, attention, motivation, and behavioral responses. Prefrontal, amygdalar, hippocampal, and reward systems add cognitive, emotional, learning, and motivational dimensions. At the network level, pain engages somatosensory pathways together with the salience network, the default mode network, and the central executive network, integrating nociception with salience, emotion, attention, self-representation, and cognitive control (De Ridder et al., 2022).

The EEG in Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is associated with altered cortical oscillations, although there is no sufficiently reliable EEG signature for diagnosing chronic pain in an individual (Zebhauser et al., 2023). The most consistent resting-state finding is increased theta (approximately 4-7 Hz), sometimes accompanied by increased beta activity, reduced alpha power, and slowing of the peak alpha frequency (Pinheiro et al., 2016). Gamma activity is associated with experimentally evoked pain, while chronic pain also produces altered theta, alpha, and beta functional connectivity. Abnormalities have been localized beyond the somatosensory cortex to the anterior cingulate cortex, insula, and prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices (Mussigmann et al., 2022). However, findings vary across pain disorders and are affected by medication, sleep, mood, age, and other factors.

Descending Modulation and Neuroplastic Reorganization

The CNS can both inhibit and facilitate pain, which helps explain why identical nociceptive input can produce markedly different subjective experiences. A major descending system connects cortical and limbic structures with the periaqueductal gray, rostral ventromedial medulla, locus coeruleus, hypothalamus, and spinal cord. These mechanisms contribute to endogenous opioid, placebo, stress-induced, fear-related, and exercise-associated analgesia. Higher cortical systems, particularly the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, provide additional top-down regulation. This explains why attention, expectation, perceived control, threat, coping, reappraisal, and emotional state can alter pain even when peripheral nociceptive input remains unchanged (van Strien & Hollmann, 2025).

As pain becomes chronic, the CNS undergoes neuroplastic reorganization at molecular, synaptic, cellular, and network levels. At the network level, persistent somatosensory pain activity may become increasingly coupled to the default mode network, while the normal relationships among the default mode, salience, and executive networks become disrupted (De Ridder et al., 2022). Increased coupling with salience circuitry may contribute to suffering and persistent attention to pain, default mode involvement may incorporate pain into self-representation, and altered central executive network interactions may contribute to cognitive and functional impairment. Thus, chronic pain is better characterized as adaptive and maladaptive neuroplastic reorganization of distributed brain systems than as simply prolonged nociceptive input or irreversible "brain damage."

Neurofeedback for Pain: An Overview

Reviews of neurofeedback for pain have been published by Patel and associates (2020), Roy and colleagues (2020), Hesam-Shariati and team (2022), Rosenthal (2023), and most recently Schuurman and colleagues (2024). Overall, there is some evidence for short-term analgesic effects of neurofeedback, but its longer-term effects are not clear. Protocols most often provided feedback for increasing alpha or SMR activity while decreasing both theta and high beta, usually on the central strip at C3, Cz, and/or C4. Infra-low frequency neurofeedback was also often used.

While several studies with relatively weak research designs show good results for neurofeedback, methodologically stronger studies often show no difference between neurofeedback and placebo or sham controls, and posttraining follow-up is often absent. Below are descriptions of key studies, along with comments about efficacy. The latter are broken down by four types of pain, and for each an efficacy estimate is given for the most typical neurofeedback method used with that type of pain.

Chronic Pain

Rosenthal (2023) reviewed biofeedback and neurofeedback methods for varieties of chronic pain, commenting on studies by Jensen and collaborators (Jacobs & Jensen, 2015; Jensen et al., 2007, 2009), who used a variety of unipolar and bipolar sites, often rewarding 8-12 Hz and 12-15 Hz while inhibiting theta and 22-32 Hz. Jensen's group tried multiple protocols with each patient before finding one that produced optimal pain reduction. A blinded randomized controlled trial by Rice and colleagues (2024) compared home-based alpha reward at C4 with a sham neurofeedback protocol; about 45% of participants in each group reported at least a 30% reduction in pain.

Fibromyalgia: A Pain Amplification Disorder

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic, benign pain disorder that involves pain, tenderness, and stiffness in the connective tissue of muscles, tendons, ligaments, and adjacent soft tissue. Patients also present with attentional deficits, depression, severe fatigue, headaches, impaired multitasking, irritable bowel syndrome, memory deficits, sleep disturbance, and temporomandibular muscle and joint pain (Donaldson & Sella, 2003; Tortora & Derrickson, 2021). The original American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria required widespread pain for at least 3 months on both sides of the body and pain during gentle palpation of at least 11 of 18 tender points at neck, shoulder, chest, back, arm, hip, and knee sites. Tender points are distinct from the trigger points of myofascial pain: they are located at a muscle's insertion rather than in the muscle belly, and when compressed they produce local pain without referred pain. Current ACR criteria rely instead on a widespread pain index and a symptom severity score and no longer require a tender point count (Winslow et al., 2023).

Fibromyalgia Demographics

Fibromyalgia affects approximately 2% of people in the United States (Winslow et al., 2023). Global prevalence is approximately 2.7%, with U.S. prevalence at about 3.1% and European prevalence at 2.5% (Soroosh & Farbod, 2024). The condition predominantly affects women, who comprise 75-90% of diagnosed cases, with a female-to-male ratio of approximately 3:1. The diagnosis is usually made between ages 20 and 50, although the incidence increases with age such that by age 80 approximately 8% of adults meet diagnostic criteria, and peak prevalence in women occurs between ages 60 and 70. Changes in diagnostic criteria over the past decade have resulted in more patients with chronic pain meeting fibromyalgia criteria (Winslow et al., 2023). Fibromyalgia-like pain is also emerging as a feature of post-COVID-19 condition, or long COVID: in a preliminary study of 18 patients with new-onset chronic musculoskeletal pain following COVID-19, 13 (72.2%) met ACR criteria for fibromyalgia (Khoja et al., 2024).

The Neurophysiological Basis of Fibromyalgia

McGrady and Moss (2013) conceptualized FM as a "pain amplification disorder" produced by the twin mechanisms of allodynia and hyperalgesia (p. 187). Allodynia means that patients experience previously benign stimuli as painful, and hyperalgesia means that they experience mildly painful stimuli as severely painful. The International Association for the Study of Pain has introduced the term nociplastic pain for this third category of pain, distinct from nociceptive and neuropathic pain, in which altered nociception occurs without clear evidence of tissue damage or a nervous system lesion (Nijs et al., 2023). Consistent with the descending modulation model described above, evidence suggests that FM involves defective descending pain modulation: the inhibitory pathways that would normally suppress pain signals are impaired, contributing to widespread pain hypersensitivity (Carneiro et al., 2025). Neurophysiological studies also point to central sensitization, a central hypersensitivity to heat, cold, and electrical stimulation (Desmeules et al., 2003). Fibromyalgia patients may have low levels of serotonin, amino acids like tryptophan, and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), and high levels of substance P and ACTH.

Sleep disturbance is a hallmark of fibromyalgia, with 60-80% of patients reporting poor sleep quality, and the relationship is bidirectional: sleep problems increase the risk of developing chronic widespread pain, while pain disrupts sleep architecture (Lawson, 2020). A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 47 randomized trials found that CBT-I significantly improved sleep quality in fibromyalgia, whereas pharmacological agents produced mixed and uncertain results (Pathak et al., 2025).

Neurofeedback for Fibromyalgia

Glombiewski and colleagues (2013) meta-analyzed seven randomized controlled trials with 321 fibromyalgia patients and found that biofeedback as a whole reduced pain intensity relative to control conditions with a large effect size. In subgroup analyses, however, only EMG biofeedback, and not the EEG biofeedback studied up to that time, significantly reduced pain, and biofeedback did not improve sleep, depression, fatigue, or health-related quality of life. More recently, a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial found that heart rate variability biofeedback (HRV-BF) improved perceived energy and functional ability in 64 fibromyalgia patients when added to standard pharmacotherapy (Carta et al., 2024).

Gilbert (2023a) reviewed biofeedback and neurofeedback approaches for fibromyalgia, rating neurofeedback probably efficacious on the basis of two successful randomized controlled trials, and Barbosa Torres and colleagues (2024) then published a systematic review of neurofeedback for fibromyalgia. A randomized study by Nelson and colleagues (2010) found reduced fibromyalgia symptoms in both the Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS) and sham neurofeedback conditions. Kayıran and colleagues (2010) conducted a randomized, rater-blind comparison of neurofeedback to reduce the theta/SMR ratio at C4 with escitalopram, and neurofeedback produced better pain reduction. The following year, Caro and Winter (2011) compared neurofeedback that rewarded SMR and inhibited both theta and 22-30 Hz at Cz with standard medical care, and only the neurofeedback patients showed pain reductions. More recently, Wu and colleagues (2021) conducted a randomized controlled trial that rewarded SMR while inhibiting theta and 18-22 Hz beta at C3, Cz, and C4, and neurofeedback significantly outperformed a telephone-support control condition.

Considering the research to date, neurofeedback for diverse chronic pain conditions is supported mainly by case studies, and in the strongest trial it was comparable to sham neurofeedback. Neurofeedback for fibromyalgia that trains SMR while inhibiting theta and high beta has a stronger record. Although EEG biofeedback did not significantly reduce pain in the Glombiewski et al. (2013) meta-analysis, which predated the Wu et al. (2021) trial, the accumulated randomized trials against medication, standard care, and telephone support can be argued to meet the criteria for efficacious and specific, although the durability of its effects after training ends has not been established.

Headache and Migraine

Primary headaches are disorders in their own right rather than symptoms of another condition, and the three that matter most clinically are tension-type headache, migraine, and cluster headache. Tension-type headache (TTH) is a steady, nonthrobbing, usually bilateral pain lasting 30 minutes to 7 days; it is classified as episodic when it occurs on fewer than 15 days per month and as chronic when it occurs on more than 15 days per month for more than 6 months (Martin & Elkind, 2005). Migraine produces recurrent unilateral, pulsating, moderate-to-severe headaches lasting 4-72 hours, aggravated by physical activity and accompanied by nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. About 80% of migraines occur without aura; migraine with aura adds reversible visual, sensory, or speech disturbances that precede the headache (Launer et al., 1999). Cluster headache (CH) begins abruptly, often 2 to 3 hours after falling asleep, with intense unilateral pain around the eye, temple, neck, and face lasting 15 to 90 minutes, typically recurring daily for 6-12 weeks and then remitting for months (Diamond & Dalessio, 1986; Martin & Elkind, 2005). Overuse of acute pain medication by patients with migraine or TTH can produce medication-overuse headache (MOH), the most common secondary headache disorder (Koonalintip et al., 2024).

Headache Demographics

Headache disorders affected nearly 2.9 billion people worldwide in 2023, roughly one person in three, and rank among the leading causes of years lived with disability; migraine accounts for about 90% of this burden, women lose more than twice as many disability years as men, and over 20% of headache-attributed disability stems from medication overuse (GBD 2023 Headache Collaborators, 2025). TTH is the most common primary headache, with a global prevalence of approximately 26% (Stovner et al., 2022). Migraine prevalence in the United States has been stable at about 12% of adults for three decades, with rates of 17-19% in women and 6-7% in men, or roughly 39 million Americans (Cohen et al., 2024). Cluster headache is far rarer; its male-to-female ratio has shifted from about 6:1 in the 1960s to roughly 2:1 today as recognition in women has improved (Blanda, 2015).

The Neurophysiological Basis of Headache

TTH is thought to arise from an interaction of peripheral and central processes (Ashina et al., 2005; Chen, 2009). Peripheral mechanisms, including pericranial muscle tenderness and myofascial trigger points, are more prominent in episodic TTH, whereas patients with chronic TTH show clear manifestations of central sensitization, and neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies demonstrate altered pain processing in cortical and subcortical regions (Pan et al., 2025; Shah et al., 2024). The relationship between muscle tension and TTH nonetheless remains controversial, since EMG studies often fail to detect increased resting muscle activity in these patients (Millea & Brody, 2002).

Migraine and cluster headache are best understood as neurovascular disorders in which the hypothalamus acts as a generator. Continuous scanning across the migraine cycle shows hypothalamic activation in the hours before pain begins (Schulte & May, 2016), consistent with prodromal symptoms such as altered mood, fatigue, and food cravings that reflect disturbed homeostatic regulation (Giffin et al., 2003), and positron emission tomography reveals posterior hypothalamic activation during cluster attacks, whose striking circadian timing points to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (May et al., 1998). The headache phase follows activation of the trigeminovascular system: the trigeminal ganglion releases calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), substance P, and related neuropeptides that dilate meningeal vessels, produce neurogenic inflammation, and sensitize central pain pathways (Burstein et al., 2019). In migraine with aura, a wave of cortical spreading depolarization (CSD), a slowly propagating disturbance of cortical activity, produces the aura and can itself activate trigeminovascular afferents (Burstein et al., 2019). CGRP infusion reliably triggers attacks in susceptible individuals, and since 2018 monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule antagonists targeting the CGRP pathway have become the first preventive drugs designed specifically for migraine (Versijpt et al., 2025). These findings replaced the older vascular theory, which attributed migraine simply to blood vessel dilation, and they explain why the trigeminal nerve is regarded as a final common pathway for cluster, migraine, and tension-type headache pain.

Neurofeedback for Headache

Peripheral biofeedback for headache has a long record: Brown and Steffen (2023) rated biofeedback for adult headache efficacious on the basis of eight RCTs using EMG, HRV, temperature, and vasomotor modalities, Benore (2023) reached the same rating for pediatric headache, and a 2025 meta-analysis of nine RCTs confirmed that biofeedback reduces migraine frequency and severity relative to waiting-list controls while performing comparably to pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (Paudel & Sah, 2025). Neurofeedback for headache has been studied far less.

Various neurofeedback approaches have been studied for reducing migraine and other chronic headache pain. These include passive infrared hemoencephalography (pirHEG) and EEG neurofeedback for alpha, SMR, and infra-low frequencies. Classic studies of pirHEG for adult migraine were reported by Carmen (2004) and by Stokes and Lappin (2010). These studies show good reduction of migraine that is sustained at follow-up, but they are of relatively low scientific rigor, lacking control groups and randomization.

Moshkani Farahani and associates (2014) randomly assigned health care workers with primary headache to neurofeedback, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), or no treatment in a pre-post design. Neurofeedback rewarded 12-15 Hz and inhibited theta and 21-30 Hz at both T3 and T4. Both treatment groups showed significantly greater reductions in headache than the no-treatment control, and neurofeedback was superior to TENS. Golshan and colleagues (2025) randomized migraine sufferers to mindfulness meditation assisted by EEG feedback from a proprietary headband and app or to an audiobook in a pretest-posttest design. Both groups showed reduced migraine, with no differences between groups.

Arina and colleagues (2022) used infra-low frequency training at T4 and P4 in a study of eight participants with tension-type headache that used a crossover design to compare neurofeedback with sham feedback. Neurofeedback outperformed sham feedback. Much earlier, Andreychuk and Skriver (1975) randomly assigned migraine patients to alpha training at O1 and O2, thermal biofeedback, or self-hypnosis in a pre-post design. Headache decreased in all groups with no differential improvement, but participants who were more hypnotizable improved most.

Walker (2011) reported that qEEG-guided neurofeedback reduced the frequency of recurrent migraine headaches in a clinical series, but this work lacked a control condition.

Taken together, the research evidence suggests that neurofeedback for migraine and tension-type headache is possibly efficacious, with the strongest evidence for training 12-15 Hz at T3 and T4 for primary headache.

Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

Some types of cancer chemotherapy cause chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), which often affects the hands and feet with pain, weakness, numbness, or tingling (Johns Hopkins Medicine, n.d.). Prinsloo and colleagues (2024) randomized 91 breast cancer survivors with CIPN to neurofeedback, placebo feedback, or a waiting list. Neurofeedback sites and thresholds were based on qEEG assessment. Both neurofeedback and placebo feedback produced pain reductions that exceeded those in the wait-list group, and symptoms continued to improve at 1-month follow-up only in the neurofeedback group. Furthermore, only the neurofeedback group showed increased alpha activity at sensorimotor and parietal sites, and changes in the targeted EEG activity predicted symptom improvement only in that group.

Mussigmann and colleagues (2025) compared two types of neurofeedback in a randomized study of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, without a sham or wait-list arm. Feedback to increase the beta 1/beta 2 ratio was compared with feedback to increase the alpha/theta ratio. Training was at C3 or C4, with the site contralateral to the location of the pain. Training to increase beta reduced pain intensity, while training to increase alpha decreased anxiety and depression symptoms. Prinsloo (2023) concluded that EEG neurofeedback for CIPN is probably efficacious.

Pediatric Pain and Headache

Neurofeedback for pediatric pain and headache, in contrast to peripheral biofeedback, is an under-researched topic (Benore, 2023; Gilbert, 2023b). Siniatchkin and colleagues (2000) compared children with migraine who received slow cortical potential training with children on a waiting list in a nonrandomized study. Those who received SCP training had significantly fewer and less intense migraine headaches after training than those on the waiting list.

Tinnitus

Tinnitus involves the perception of sound, often described as ringing, buzzing, or hissing, when no external acoustic stimulus is present. Tinnitus is commonly associated with hearing loss and affected approximately 11.2% of U.S. adults, about 27 million people, in the most recent national analysis (Batts & Stankovic, 2024). Tinnitus is also the most prevalent service-connected disability among U.S. veterans, with roughly 2.9 million compensated (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2023). Audiologists also note that tinnitus is very often (30-40% of cases) associated with anxiety and depression (Pineault, 2024).

Clinical Efficacy

Recent RCTs have in particular investigated uptraining of the alpha/delta ratio (with either an increase of alpha or decrease of delta) at 10-10 electrode sites FC1, FC2, F3 and F4 (Jensen et al., 2023) which showed promise. Meehan and Shaffer (2023) rated neurofeedback for tinnitus as possibly efficacious while biofeedback is probably efficacious. It is useful to consider that neurofeedback may still provide benefit for symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and poor sleep that are secondary to tinnitus.

Optimal Performance

Neurofeedback has several aims, including basic scientific understanding of brain function, amelioration of health concerns, and strengthening of peak performance. Peak or optimal performance refers to seemingly effortless functioning at the limit of one's ability. Types of optimal performance include motor performance in athletic or artistic endeavors, cognitive performance in tasks that demand mental effort, and emotional regulation during stressful activities. Parameters of interest may include force, complexity, speed, coordination, endurance, recovery time, and flexibility. An important application of neurofeedback is the use of its technologies to teach self-regulation of brain activity in the service of optimal performance.

Neurofeedback for Optimal Performance

Randomized controlled trials have focused mainly on optimal motor performance among athletes, although interesting studies have also been conducted with surgical and artistic performance skills. Few studies have targeted cognitive performance in academic or professional skills, for example among lawyers or business executives. Cheng and colleagues (2023) studied qEEG activity in skilled marksmen and showed that elite performance is linked to efficient neural processing rather than simply greater brain activation, consistent with the psychomotor efficiency hypothesis. In skilled marksmen, superior performance appears to depend on maintaining focused attention while minimizing interference from unnecessary cognitive processes.

Systematic analyses of neurofeedback for executive cognitive functions among healthy individuals by Kimura and associates (2024) and by Viviani and Vallesi (2021) found only weak support for this application. Artistic performance among musicians, actors, and dancers has shown some promise, as seen in the work of Gruzelier and colleagues on alpha-theta and SMR training (Egner & Gruzelier, 2003; Gruzelier et al., 2010).

Example Study

A recent example is the study by Lo and associates (2025), who randomly assigned pistol shooters to either neurofeedback followed by shooting skills training or to shooting skills training alone, with neurofeedback provided to increase left temporal alpha activity. The results indicated that neurofeedback training was associated with both neural and behavioral changes. Shooters who received neurofeedback demonstrated significantly greater improvement in shooting accuracy from pretest to posttest than those in the control group. Performance gains were evident across the training sessions and were largest by the final session of the intervention period.

Clinical Efficacy

Ford and Sherlin (2023) rated neurofeedback for optimal performance as probably efficacious in Evidence-Based Practice in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (4th ed.). More recently, Yu and colleagues (2025) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies with a total of 271 participants who were athletes engaged in golf putting, rifle or pistol shooting, archery, dance, balance, and cycling endurance. Neurofeedback training frequently targeted alpha, theta, SMR, or 15-30 Hz beta at sites that often included C3, Cz, C4, or Pz. Yu and colleagues concluded that neurofeedback produced a moderate effect size when all studies were taken into account, with novice athletes showing a trend toward stronger effects.

Another recent meta-analysis by Z. Li and associates (2026) focused specifically on neurofeedback for golf putting and included 12 randomized controlled trials involving 424 participants. Of particular relevance, Cz SMR neurofeedback showed a significant positive effect on putting performance, whereas protocols that inhibited mu or frontal-midline theta produced negative effects. The authors concluded that Cz SMR enhancement was the most promising EEG neurofeedback protocol for golf putting, while emphasizing the importance of matching the EEG target to the task and the athlete's skill level.

When Clients Do Not Respond: Modifiable Biological Contributors

The ADHD section of this unit introduced a habit worth generalizing: when a client fails to respond to a treatment that ordinarily works, look for something the diagnosis did not tell you. There, the overlooked variable was a feature of the raw EEG. Across conditions, two other candidates have accumulated enough evidence to belong in a neurofeedback clinician's intake interview, even though neither falls within a non-physician's scope to test or treat. Both matter for the same practical reason: a client whose progress stalls because of an unaddressed metabolic or physiological contributor is easily misread as a training failure, and the usual response of adding more sessions will not fix a problem the training was never addressing.

Methylation, Folate, and the MTHFR Gene

The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene encodes an enzyme with two jobs that matter for the brain. It converts homocysteine, an amino acid that becomes harmful at elevated concentrations, into methionine, which the body needs for protein synthesis; and it converts dietary folate, a B vitamin, into active folate, the usable form required for DNA synthesis and repair and for manufacturing neurotransmitters (Bailey & Gregory, 1999; Finkelstein, 2000; Lucock, 2000). Two common polymorphisms, meaning naturally occurring variants of a gene present in a substantial fraction of the population, reduce that enzyme's efficiency: C677T and A1298C. They are not rare. Roughly 10% to 15% of people of European ancestry carry two copies of C677T, and up to half carry at least one, with A1298C showing comparable frequencies that vary by population (Wilcken et al., 2003).

Reduced enzyme efficiency produces two downstream problems. Homocysteine accumulates, and elevated homocysteine is associated with cardiovascular disease and with cognitive decline and neurodegenerative risk (Clarke et al., 1998). Meanwhile the body struggles to activate folate even when dietary intake is adequate, and because active folate is required for neurotransmitter synthesis, the resulting functional deficiency can contribute to the imbalances implicated in mood and psychotic disorders (Reynolds, 2002). Meta-analytic work links the C677T polymorphism to depression and, more broadly, to psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia (Gilbody et al., 2007; Roffman et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2013).

Clinicians who work with refractory cases have developed a practical screening heuristic. Ron Swatzyna reviews family history for miscarriages and for heart problems or strokes occurring before the seventies, because both are statistically associated with these polymorphisms, and recommends testing when that history is positive (R. Swatzyna, personal communication, 2024; Kim & Becker, 2003; Ray et al., 1999; Xuan et al., 2014). What to test is genuinely contested. Writing for the Cleveland Clinic, the geneticist Charis Eng (2020) argues that homocysteine levels rather than MTHFR genotype should determine action, since the genotype is common and its consequences are what actually need correcting. The counterargument is that homocysteine assays carry their own problems, including substantial intra-individual variability across repeated draws and genotype-dependent responses to supplementation (Crider et al., 2011; Santhosh-Kumar et al., 1997). Either way, ordering and interpreting these tests belongs to the client's physician.

When a deficiency is identified, the correction is dietary folate from leafy greens, legumes, and fortified grains, plus supplementation with methylfolate, the already-active form that bypasses the impaired enzyme entirely (Bailey & Gregory, 1999). The evidence for benefit is real but should be described to clients as modest augmentation rather than treatment. Methylfolate improves antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder who show partial or no response to standard medication (Hoepner et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2019; Maruf et al., 2021), preliminary randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for manic symptoms in bipolar disorder though not yet for bipolar depression (Sylvia et al., 2012), and it is associated with improvement in the negative symptoms of schizophrenia while its effects on positive and general symptoms remain unclear (Roffman et al., 2017; Sakuma et al., 2018).

The actionable step for a neurofeedback clinician is narrow and entirely within scope: ask about family history of miscarriage, early cardiac events, and stroke during the intake, and when a client with depression, anxiety, or a psychotic disorder plateaus despite an adequate training dose, raise the possibility of a metabolic contributor with the prescribing physician rather than escalating the protocol. Framing that referral as a question about homocysteine and folate status, supported by the family history you documented, is more likely to be acted on than a general suggestion that something else might be wrong.

The Gut–Brain Axis and the Microbiome

The gut microbiome, the community of bacteria, fungi, and viruses inhabiting the gastrointestinal tract, communicates with the central nervous system through neural, hormonal, and immune pathways collectively called the gut–brain axis. Gut bacteria synthesize neurotransmitters including gamma-aminobutyric acid, serotonin, and dopamine, and they produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), metabolites generated by fermenting dietary fiber that maintain the integrity of the gut barrier and restrain systemic inflammation. Reviewing this literature for serious mental illnesses (SMIs), meaning schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, Nguyen and colleagues (2021) found consistent evidence of dysbiosis, an imbalance in microbial composition. Reduced microbial diversity appeared across conditions, with increased pro-inflammatory Prevotella and Bacteroides in schizophrenia, reduced anti-inflammatory Faecalibacterium in the limited bipolar literature, and reduced SCFA-producing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in major depressive disorder.

The proposed common pathway is neuroinflammation, the inflammatory activation of nervous tissue that a depleted SCFA supply fails to restrain. These directional findings should be held loosely. Later syntheses covering the same three disorders report that most analyses find no difference in microbial diversity between cases and controls, and they reverse or fail to confirm several genus-level directions, including those for Bacteroides in schizophrenia and Lactobacillus in major depressive disorder, so the pattern is better described as unsettled than as established.

The honest appraisal is that this field is early. Most studies are observational and small, sequencing methods and diagnostic criteria vary enough to make cross-study comparison difficult, and diet, lifestyle, and medication confound nearly every finding. The relationship also runs in both directions: antipsychotics and mood stabilizers themselves alter microbial composition, so differences observed in medicated patients cannot be interpreted as causes of their illness (Nguyen et al., 2021). Among interventions, probiotics using Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains have shown potential for improving depressive symptoms and cognition, but results vary with strain, dose, and design. Dietary change emphasizing high-fiber foods and fermented products is linked to greater microbial diversity and SCFA production, with adherence the main obstacle. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), the transfer of gut microbiota from a healthy donor to a patient, shows early promise but faces unresolved questions of safety and standardization.

For neurofeedback practice, the appropriate posture is interest without overreach. General wellness education about fiber, fermented foods, and dietary quality sits comfortably within the lifestyle counseling that already accompanies biofeedback training, and it is the intervention with the best risk-benefit profile in this literature. Recommending specific probiotic regimens, and certainly anything involving FMT, does not. There is also a mechanistic connection worth noting without overstating: the vagus nerve is one channel of the gut–brain axis, and HRV biofeedback strengthens the vagally mediated regulation this unit describes in the anxiety and depression sections, which makes the pairing of dietary counseling with HRV training conceptually coherent even though no trial has yet tested that combination directly. The most concrete clinical use is a referral trigger. A client with treatment-resistant mood symptoms, prominent gastrointestinal complaints, and a history of repeated antibiotic courses is a client whose medical workup is incomplete, and saying so is more useful than adding sessions.

Staying Within Scope While Broadening the Formulation

Both of these literatures invite a failure mode that the ethics unit of this course addresses directly. Understanding that a genetic polymorphism or a microbial imbalance may be contributing to a client's presentation does not authorize a non-physician to order tests, interpret laboratory values, or recommend supplements, and clients under pressure from a stalled treatment are unusually receptive to advice that exceeds a provider's competence. The defensible practice is to broaden the formulation while narrowing the action. Take a history detailed enough to notice these possibilities, document what you observe, name the question for the physician who can pursue it, and continue delivering the intervention you are trained to deliver. Doing so also protects the training itself from an unfair verdict, because a client who plateaus for a metabolic reason has not demonstrated that neurofeedback failed; they have demonstrated that the formulation was incomplete.

Cutting-Edge Topics in Neurofeedback Research

Glossary

Visit the BioSource Software Website

BioSource Software offers Physiological Psychology, which satisfies BCIA's Neuroanatomy requirement, and the Neurofeedback100 Testing Service, which provides extensive multiple-choice testing over the Neurofeedback Blueprint.

Assignment

Now that you have completed this module, consider the elements that neurofeedback training shares with modalities like EMG and temperature biofeedback. How is neurofeedback training different? What unique challenges does training brain activity present compared to training peripheral physiological signals?

References

Abbasi, F., Shariati, K., & Tajikzadeh, F. (2018). Comparison of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy and neurofeedback: Reducing anxiety symptoms. Archives of Neuroscience, 5(3), Article e62341. https://doi.org/10.5812/archneurosci.62341

Aggensteiner, P.-M., Brandeis, D., Millenet, S., Hohmann, S., Ruckes, C., Beuth, S., Albrecht, B., Schmitt, G., Schermuly, S., Wörz, S., Gevensleben, H., Freitag, C. M., Banaschewski, T., Rothenberger, A., Strehl, U., & Holtmann, M. (2019). Slow cortical potentials neurofeedback in children with ADHD: Comorbidity, self-regulation and clinical outcomes 6 months after treatment in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(8), 1087-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-01271-8

Ahmad, A. H., & Abdul Aziz, C. B. (2014). The brain in pain. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 21(Special Issue), 46-54.

Albarrán-Cárdenas, L., Silva-Pereyra, J., Martínez-Briones, B. J., Bosch-Bayard, J., & Fernández, T. (2023). Neurofeedback effects on EEG connectivity among children with reading disorders: I. Coherence. Applied Sciences, 13(5), Article 2825. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13052825

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Evidence-based child and adolescent psychosocial interventions.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). Author.

American Psychological Association. (2016, February 22). Persistent ADHD associated with overly critical parents. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/02/adhd-critical-parents

Anderson, B. A. (2021). An adaptive view of attentional control. American Psychologist, 76(9), 1410-1422.

Andreychuk, T., & Skriver, C. (1975). Hypnosis and biofeedback in the treatment of migraine headache. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23(3), 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207147508415942

Aquino, G., Benz, F., Dressle, R. J., Gemignani, A., Alfì, G., Palagini, L., Spiegelhalder, K., Riemann, D., & Feige, B. (2024). Towards the neurobiology of insomnia: A systematic review of neuroimaging studies. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 73, Article 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101878

Arina, G. A., Dobrushina, O. R., Shvetsova, E. T., Osina, E. D., Meshkov, G. A., Aziatskaya, G. A., Trofimova, A. K., Efremova, I. N., Martunov, S. E., & Nikolaeva, V. V. (2022). Infra-low frequency neurofeedback in tension-type headache: A cross-over sham-controlled study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 891323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.891323

Arnold, L. E., Arns, M., Barterian, J., Bergman, R., Black, S., Conners, C. K., Connor, S., Dasgupta, S., deBeus, R., Higgins, T., Hirshberg, L., Hollway, J. A., Kerson, C., Lightstone, H., Lofthouse, N., Lubar, J., McBurnett, K., Monastra, V., Buchan-Page, K., . . . Williams, C. E. (2021). Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with 13-month follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(7), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.07.906

Arns, M., Conners, C. K., & Kraemer, H. C. (2013). A decade of EEG theta/beta ratio research in ADHD: A meta-analysis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17(5), 374-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054712460087

Arns, M., Feddema, I., & Kenemans, J. L. (2014). Differential effects of theta/beta and SMR neurofeedback in ADHD on sleep onset latency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01019

Arns, M., & Kenemans, J. L. (2014). Neurofeedback in ADHD and insomnia: Vigilance stabilization through sleep spindles and circadian networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.006

Arns, M., Swatzyna, R. J., Gunkelman, J., & Olbrich, S. (2015). Sleep maintenance, spindling excessive beta and impulse control: An RDoC arousal and regulatory systems approach? Neuropsychiatric Electrophysiology, 1, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40810-015-0005-9

Arrondo, G., Mulraney, M., Iturmendi-Sabater, I., Musullulu, H., Gambra, L., Niculcea, T., Banaschewski, T., Simonoff, E., Döpfner, M., Hinshaw, S. P., Coghill, D., & Cortese, S. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis: Clinical utility of continuous performance tests for the identification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 63(2), 154-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.03.011

Ashina, M., Bendtsen, L., & Ashina, S. (2005). Pathophysiology of tension-type headache. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 9(6), 415-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-005-0021-8

Ayers, M. E. (1995). EEG neurofeedback to bring individuals out of level 2 coma. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 20(3), 304-305.

Baehr, E., Rosenfeld, J. P., & Baehr, R. (1997). The clinical use of an alpha asymmetry protocol in the neurofeedback treatment of depression: Two case studies. Journal of Neurotherapy, 2(3), 10-23.

Baehr, E., Rosenfeld, J. P., Baehr, R., & Earnest, C. (1999). Clinical use of an alpha asymmetry neurofeedback protocol in the treatment of mood disorders. In J. R. Evans & A. Abarbanel (Eds.), Introduction to quantitative EEG and neurofeedback (pp. 181-201). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012243790-8/50009-2

Bailey, L. B., & Gregory, J. F. (1999). Folate metabolism and requirements. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(4), 779-782. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/129.4.779

Banaschewski, T., & Brandeis, D. (2007). Annotation: What electrical brain activity tells us about brain function that other techniques cannot tell us—A child psychiatric perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(5), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01681.x

Barbosa Torres, C., Guerrero Barona, E. J., Guerrero Molina, M., García-Baamonde Sánchez, M. E., & Moreno Manso, J. M. (2024). A systematic review of EEG neurofeedback in fibromyalgia to treat psychological variables, chronic pain and general health. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 274(4), 981-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-023-01612-y

Barkley, R. A. (2015). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Barquero, L. A., Davis, N., & Cutting, L. E. (2014). Neuroimaging of reading intervention: A systematic review and activation likelihood estimate meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(1), Article e83668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083668

Barry, R. J., Johnstone, S. J., & Clarke, A. R. (2003). A review of electrophysiology in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. Event-related potentials. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(2), 184-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00363-2

Batts, S., & Stankovic, K. M. (2024). Tinnitus prevalence, associated characteristics, and related healthcare use in the United States: A population-level analysis. The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, 29, 100659.

Beauchamp, M. H., Beare, R., Ditchfield, M., Coleman, L., Babl, F. E., Kean, M., Crossley, L., Catroppa, C., Yeates, K. O., & Anderson, V. (2013). Susceptibility weighted imaging and its relationship to outcome after pediatric traumatic brain injury. Cortex, 49(2), 591-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.015

Belanger, H. G., Spiegel, E., & Vanderploeg, R. D. (2010). Neuropsychological performance following a history of multiple self-reported concussions: A meta-analysis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16(2), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709991287

Belanger, H. G., Tate, D. F., & Vanderploeg, R. D. (2018). Concussion and mild traumatic brain injury. In J. E. Morgan & J. H. Ricker (Eds.), Textbook of clinical neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 411-448). Routledge.

Bell, A. N., Moss, D., & Kallmeyer, R. J. (2019). Healing the neurophysiological roots of trauma: A controlled study examining LORETA z-score neurofeedback and HRV biofeedback for chronic PTSD. NeuroRegulation, 6(2), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.15540/nr.6.2.54

Benore, E. (2023). Pediatric headache. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 379-390). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Berglund, K., Roman, E., Balldin, J., Berggren, U., Eriksson, M., Gustavsson, P., & Fahlke, C. (2011). Do men with excessive alcohol consumption and social stability have an addictive personality? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(3), 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00872.x

Biederman, J., Mick, E., & Faraone, S. V. (2000). Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Impact of remission definition and symptom type. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(5), 816–818. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.816

Bijanki, K. R., Pathak, Y. J., Najera, R. A., Storch, E. A., Goodman, W. K., Simpson, H. B., & Sheth, S. A. (2021). Defining functional brain networks underlying obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) using treatment-induced neuroimaging changes: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 92(7), 776-786. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-324478

Bishop, S. J. (2008). Neural mechanisms underlying selective attention to threat. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129(1), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1417.016

Blanda, M. (2015). Cluster headache. Medscape. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1142459-overview

Bluschke, A., Broschwitz, F., Kohl, S., Roessner, V., & Beste, C. (2016). The neuronal mechanisms underlying improvement of impulsivity in ADHD by theta/beta neurofeedback. Scientific Reports, 6, 31178.

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887-919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887

Bong, S. H., & Kim, J. W. (2021). The role of quantitative electroencephalogram in the diagnosis and subgrouping of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.210010

Breteler, M. H. M., Arns, M., Peters, S., Giepmans, I., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Improvements in spelling after QEEG-based neurofeedback in dyslexia: A randomized controlled treatment study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 35(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-009-9105-2

Brody, D. J., & Hughes, J. P. (2025). Depression prevalence in adolescents and adults: United States, August 2021-August 2023. NCHS Data Brief, 527, 1-11.

Broglio, S. P., Eckner, J. T., Martini, D., Sosnoff, J. J., Kutcher, J. S., & Randolph, C. (2011). Cumulative head impact burden in high school football. Journal of Neurotrauma, 28(10), 2069-2078. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.1825

Brown, T., & Steffen, P. (2023). Adult headache. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Burstein, R., Noseda, R., & Borsook, D. (2019). Migraine: Multiple processes, complex pathophysiology. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(42), 8537-8546. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0519-19.2019

Bussalb, A., Collin, S., Barthélemy, Q., Ojeda, D., Bioulac, S., Blasco-Fontecilla, H., Brandeis, D., Purper Ouakil, D., Ros, T., & Mayaud, L. (2019). Is there a cluster of high theta-beta ratio patients in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Clinical Neurophysiology, 130(8), 1387-1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.02.021

Byeon, J., Choi, T.-Y., Won, G.-H., Lee, J., & Kim, J. W. (2020). A novel quantitative electroencephalography subtype with high alpha power in ADHD: ADHD or misdiagnosed ADHD? PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0242566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242566

Cainelli, E., Vedovelli, L., Carretti, B., & Bisiacchi, P. (2023). EEG correlates of developmental dyslexia: A systematic review. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(2), 184-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00273-1

Carlson, J., Ross, G. W., Tyrrell, C., Fiame, B., Nunokawa, C., Siriwardhana, C., & Schaper, K. (2025). Infra-low frequency neurofeedback impact on post-concussive symptoms of headache, insomnia and attention disorder: Results of a randomized control trial. Explore, 21(2), Article 103137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2025.103137

Carmen, J. A. (2004). Passive infrared hemoencephalography: Four years and 100 migraines. Journal of Neurotherapy, 8(3), 23-51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v08n03_03

Carneiro, B. D., Torres, S., Costa-Pereira, J. T., Pozza, D. H., & Tavares, I. (2025). Descending pain modulation in fibromyalgia: A short review of mechanisms and biomarkers. Diagnostics, 15(21), 2702. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212702

Caro, X. J., & Winter, E. F. (2011). EEG biofeedback treatment improves certain attention and somatic symptoms in fibromyalgia: A pilot study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 36(3), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-011-9159-9

Carpi, M., & Liguori, C. (2025). Sleep EEG in chronic insomnia disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology, 176, Article 2110774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2025.2110774

Carta, M. G., Cossu, G., Primavera, D., Aviles Gonzalez, C. I., Testa, G., Stocchino, S., Finco, G., Littera, M. T., Deidda, M. C., Lorrai, S., Madeddu, C., Nardi, A. E., & Sancassiani, F. (2024). Heart rate variability biofeedback efficacy on fatigue and energy levels in fibromyalgia: A secondary analysis of RCT NCT0412183. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(14), 4008. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144008

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Key findings: Trends in the parent-report of health care provider diagnosed and medicated ADHD, United States, 2003-2011. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). TBI data. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/traumatic-brain-injury/data-research/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Epilepsy: Facts and stats. https://www.cdc.gov/epilepsy/data-research/facts-stats/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025, May 27). Data and statistics on autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved September 5, 2026, from https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html

Chaves, R. S., Tran, M., Holder, A. R., Balcer, A. M., Dickey, A. M., Roberts, E. A., Bober, B. G., Gutiérrez, E., Head, B. P., Groisman, A., Goldstein, L. S. B., Almenar-Queralt, A., & Shah, S. B. (2021). Amyloidogenic processing of amyloid precursor protein drives stretch-induced disruption of axonal transport in hiPSC-derived neurons. The Journal of Neuroscience, 41(49), 10034-10053. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2553-20.2021

Cheetham, A., Allen, N. B., Whittle, S., Simmons, J., Yücel, M., & Lubman, D. I. (2014). Volumetric differences in the anterior cingulate cortex prospectively predict alcohol-related problems in adolescence. Psychopharmacology, 231(8), 1731-1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3483-8

Chen, P.-Y., Su, I.-C., Shih, C.-Y., Liu, Y.-C., Su, Y.-K., Wei, L., Luh, H.-T., Huang, H.-C., Tsai, P.-S., Fan, Y.-C., & Chiu, H.-Y. (2023). Effects of neurofeedback on cognitive function, productive activity, and quality of life in patients with traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 37(5), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683231170539

Chen, Y. (2009). Advances in the pathophysiology of tension-type headache: From stress to central sensitization. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 13(6), 484-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-009-0078-x

Cheng, M.-Y., Wang, K.-P., Doppelmayr, M., Steinberg, F., Hung, T.-M., Lu, C., Tan, Y. Y., & Hatfield, B. (2023). QEEG markers of superior shooting performance in skilled marksmen: An investigation of cortical activity on psychomotor efficiency hypothesis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 65, Article 102320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102320

Choi, Y.-J., Choi, E.-J., & Ko, E. (2023). Neurofeedback effect on symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 48(3), 259-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-023-09593-3

Chronis, A. M., Chacko, A., Fabiano, G. A., Wymbs, B. T., & Pelham, W. E. (2004). Enhancements to the behavioral parent training paradigm for families of children with ADHD: Review and future directions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CCFP.0000020190.60808.a4

Clancy, K. J., Andrzejewski, J. A., Simon, J., Ding, M., Schmidt, N. B., & Li, W. (2020). Posttraumatic stress disorder is associated with α dysrhythmia across the visual cortex and the default mode network. eNeuro, 7(4), Article ENEURO.0053-20.2020. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0053-20.2020

Clarke, A. R., Barry, R. J., McCarthy, R., & Selikowitz, M. (2001). Excess beta activity in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An atypical electrophysiological group. Psychiatry Research, 103(2-3), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(01)00277-3

Clarke, R., Smith, A. D., Jobst, K. A., Refsum, H., Sutton, L., & Ueland, P. M. (1998). Folate, vitamin B12, and serum total homocysteine levels in confirmed Alzheimer's disease. Archives of Neurology, 55(11), 1449-1455. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.55.11.1449

Cleveland Clinic. (2026, January 29). Dyslexia. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6005-dyslexia

Coben, R., & Padolsky, I. (2007). Assessment-guided neurofeedback for autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Neurotherapy, 11(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v11n01_02

Coben, R., Wright, E. K., Decker, S. L., & Morgan, T. (2015). The impact of coherence neurofeedback on reading delays in learning disabled children: A randomized controlled study. NeuroRegulation, 2(4), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.15540/nr.2.4.168

Cohen, F., Brooks, C. V., Sun, D., Buse, D. C., Reed, M. L., Fanning, K. M., & Lipton, R. B. (2024). Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: A systematic review. Headache, 64(5), 516-532. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14709

Cortoos, A., De Valck, E., Arns, M., Breteler, M. H. M., & Cluydts, R. (2010). An exploratory study on the effects of tele-neurofeedback and tele-biofeedback on objective and subjective sleep in patients with primary insomnia. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 35(2), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-009-9116-z

Crider, K. S., Zhu, J.-H., Hao, L., Yang, Q.-H., Yang, T. P., Gindler, J., Maneval, D. R., Quinlivan, E. P., Li, Z., Bailey, L. B., & Berry, R. J. (2011). MTHFR 677C→T genotype is associated with folate and homocysteine concentrations in a large, population-based, double-blind trial of folic acid supplementation. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(6), 1365-1372. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.004671

Crisco, J. J., Fiore, R., Beckwith, J. G., Chu, J. J., Brolinson, P. G., Duma, S., McAllister, T. W., Duhaime, A.-C., & Greenwald, R. M. (2010). Frequency and location of head impact exposures in individual collegiate football players. Journal of Athletic Training, 45(6), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.549

Cuijpers, P., Oud, M., Karyotaki, E., Noma, H., Quero, S., Cipriani, A., Arroll, B., & Furukawa, T. A. (2021). Psychologic treatment of depression compared with pharmacotherapy and combined treatment in primary care: A network meta-analysis. Annals of Family Medicine, 19(3), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2676

D'Aiello, B., Menghini, D., Di Vara, S., De Rossi, P., & Vicari, S. (2024). Predictors of methylphenidate response in children and adolescents with ADHD: The role of sleep disturbances. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-024-01932-7

Davidson, R. J. (1992). Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion. Brain and Cognition, 20(1), 125-151.

De Ridder, D., Vanneste, S., Smith, M., & Adhia, D. (2022). Pain and the triple network model. Frontiers in Neurology, 13, Article 757241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.757241

de Wit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: A review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2008.00129.x

Deiber, M.-P., Hasler, R., Colin, J., Dayer, A., Aubry, J.-M., Baggio, S., Perroud, N., & Ros, T. (2019). Linking alpha oscillations, attention and inhibitory control in adult ADHD with EEG neurofeedback. NeuroImage: Clinical, 25, 102145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102145

Deng, X., Wang, G., Zhou, L., Zhang, X., Yang, M., Han, G., Tu, Z., & Liu, B. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of adjunctive EEG-biofeedback treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(5), 272-279. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.214067

Denworth, L. (2024). Kids with ADHD may still have symptoms as adults. Scientific American.

Department of Veterans Affairs & Department of Defense. (2023). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/ptsd/

Desmeules, J. A., Cedraschi, C., Rapiti, E., Baumgartner, E., Finckh, A., Cohen, P., Dayer, P., & Vischer, T. L. (2003). Neurophysiologic evidence for a central sensitization in patients with fibromyalgia. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 48(5), 1420-1429. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10893

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Diamond, S., & Dalessio, D. J. (1986). The practicing physician's approach to headache (4th ed.). Williams & Wilkins.

Dinc, L., Rybski, D., & Dineen, J. (2025). The effects of alpha/theta neurofeedback on mood, anxiety, emotion regulation and trait impulsivity. Brain Research, 1866, Article 149943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2025.149943

Donaldson, C. C. S., & Sella, G. E. (2003). Fibromyalgia. In D. Moss, A. McGrady, T. C. Davies, & I. Wickramasekera (Eds.), Handbook of mind-body medicine for primary care. Sage.

Dressle, R. J., Feige, B., Spiegelhalder, K., Schmucker, C., Benz, F., Mey, N. C., & Riemann, D. (2022). HPA axis activity in patients with chronic insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 62, Article 101588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101588

Dressle, R. J., & Riemann, D. (2023). Hyperarousal in insomnia disorder: Current evidence and potential mechanisms. Journal of Sleep Research, 32(6), Article e13928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.13928

Dubreuil-Vall, L., Ruffini, G., & Camprodon, J. A. (2020). Deep learning convolutional neural networks discriminate adult ADHD from healthy individuals on the basis of event-related spectral EEG. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00251

DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (2014). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Durham, P. L., & Garrett, F. G. (2009). Neurological mechanisms of migraine: Potential of the gap-junction modulator tonabersat in prevention of migraine. Cephalalgia, 29(Suppl. 2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01976.x

Edinger, J. D., Arnedt, J. T., Bertisch, S. M., Carney, C. E., Harrington, J. J., Lichstein, K. L., Sateia, M. J., Troxel, W. M., Zhou, E. S., Kazmi, U., Heald, J. L., & Martin, J. L. (2021). Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 17(2), 255-262. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.8986

Egner, T., & Gruzelier, J. H. (2003). Ecological validity of neurofeedback: Modulation of slow wave EEG enhances musical performance. NeuroReport, 14(9), 1221-1224. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200307010-00006

Ehring, T., Welboren, R., Morina, N., Wicherts, J. M., Freitag, J., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2014). Meta-analysis of psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder in adult survivors of childhood abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(8), 645-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.10.004

Eng, C. (2020). A genetic test you don't need. Cleveland Clinic Health Essentials. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/a-genetic-test-you-dont-need

Enriquez-Geppert, S., Brown, T., Heinrich, H., Arns, M., & Garcia Pimenta, M. (2023). Treatment efficacy and clinical effectiveness of EEG neurofeedback as a personalized and multimodal treatment in ADHD: A critical review. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). AAPB.

Enriquez-Geppert, S., Krc, J., van Dijk, H., deBeus, R. J., Arnold, L. E., & Arns, M. (2024). Theta/beta ratio neurofeedback effects on resting and task-related theta activity in children with ADHD. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 50(4), 667-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-024-09675-w

Enriquez-Geppert, S., Smit, D., Pimenta, M. G., & Arns, M. (2019). Neurofeedback as a treatment intervention in ADHD: Current evidence and practice. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21(6), 46.

Epstein, J. N., Willoughby, M., Valencia, E. Y., Tonev, S. T., Abikoff, H. B., Arnold, L. E., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2005). The role of children's ethnicity in the relationship between teacher ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and observed classroom behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 424-434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.424

Eroğlu, G., Gürkan, M., Teber, S., Ertürk, K., Kırmızı, M., Ekici, B., Arman, F., Balcisoy, S., Özgüz, V., & Çetin, M. (2022). Changes in EEG complexity with neurofeedback and multi-sensory learning in children with dyslexia: A multiscale entropy analysis. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2020.1772794

Ersche, K. D., Jones, P. S., Williams, G. B., Turton, A. J., Robbins, T. W., & Bullmore, E. T. (2012). Abnormal brain structure implicated in stimulant drug addiction. Science, 335(6068), 601-604. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214463

Evans, S. W., Owens, J. S., & Bunford, N. (2014). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 527-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.850700

Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 348-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005481

Fernández, T., Bosch-Bayard, J., Harmony, T., Caballero, M. I., Díaz-Comas, L., Galán, L., Ricardo-Garcell, J., Aubert, E., & Otero-Ojeda, G. (2016). Neurofeedback in learning disabled children: Visual versus auditory reinforcement. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 41(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-015-9309-6

Fernández, T., Harmony, T., Fernández-Bouzas, A., Díaz-Comas, L., Prado-Alcalá, R. A., Valdés-Sosa, P., Otero, G., Bosch, J., Galán, L., Santiago-Rodríguez, E., Aubert, E., & García-Martínez, F. (2007). Changes in EEG current sources induced by neurofeedback in learning disabled children. An exploratory study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 32(3-4), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-007-9044-8

Ferreira, S., Pêgo, J. M., & Morgado, P. (2019). The efficacy of biofeedback approaches for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 272, 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.096

Finkelstein, J. D. (2000). Pathways and regulation of homocysteine metabolism in mammals. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 26(3), 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-8466

Fisher, R. S., Cross, J. H., French, J. A., Higurashi, N., Hirsch, E., Jansen, F. E., Lagae, L., Moshé, S. L., Peltola, J., Roulet Perez, E., Scheffer, I. E., & Zuberi, S. M. (2017). Operational classification of seizure types by the International League Against Epilepsy: Position paper of the ILAE Commission for Classification and Terminology. Epilepsia, 58(4), 522–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13670

Ford, N. C., & Sherlin, L. (2023). Optimal performance. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 364-378). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Forssman, L., Eninger, L., Tillman, C. M., Rodriguez, A., & Bohlin, G. (2012). Cognitive functioning and family risk factors in relation to symptom behaviors of ADHD and ODD in adolescents. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16(4), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054710385065

Foster, S. R., Foster, D. S., & Gross, M. N. (2023). Traumatic brain injury. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). AAPB.

Frankowski, J. C., Tierno, A., Pavani, S., Cao, Q., Lyon, D. C., & Hunt, R. F. (2022). Brain-wide reconstruction of inhibitory circuits after traumatic brain injury. Nature Communications, 13(1), 3417. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31072-2

Franques, P., Auriacombe, M., & Tignol, J. (2000). Addiction and personality. L’Encéphale, 26(1), 68-78.

Frey, L. C. (2023). Epilepsy. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Fumuro, T., Matsuhashi, M., Kinoshita, M., Matsumoto, R., Takahashi, R., & Ikeda, A. (2025). Self-regulation of slow cortical potential and seizure suppression by scalp electroencephalography: Early prediction of therapeutic efficacy. Clinical Neurophysiology, 170, 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2024.11.018

Garcia, D. A. (2023). Insomnia. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 326-340). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

GBD 2023 Headache Collaborators. (2025). Global, regional, and national burden of headache disorders, 1990-2023: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023. The Lancet Neurology, 24(12), 1005-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(25)00402-8

Geddes-Klein, D. M., Schiffman, K. B., & Meaney, D. F. (2006). Mechanisms and consequences of neuronal stretch injury in vitro differ with the model of trauma. Journal of Neurotrauma, 23(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.23.193

Gevensleben, H., Holl, B., Albrecht, B., Schlamp, D., Kratz, O., Studer, P., Rothenberger, A., Moll, G. H., & Heinrich, H. (2010). Neurofeedback training in children with ADHD: 6-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(9), 715-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-010-0109-5

Gevensleben, H., Holl, B., Albrecht, B., Vogel, C., Schlamp, D., Kratz, O., Studer, P., Rothenberger, A., Moll, G. H., & Heinrich, H. (2009). Is neurofeedback an efficacious treatment for ADHD? A randomised controlled clinical trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(7), 780-789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02033.x

Giffin, N. J., Ruggiero, L., Lipton, R. B., Silberstein, S. D., Tvedskov, J. F., Olesen, J., Altman, J., Goadsby, P. J., & Macrae, A. (2003). Premonitory symptoms in migraine: An electronic diary study. Neurology, 60(6), 935-940. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000052998.58526.a9

Gilbert, C. (2023a). Fibromyalgia. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 290-293). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Gilbert, C. (2023b). Pediatric pain other than headache. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 391-403). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Gilbody, S., Lewis, S., & Lightfoot, T. (2007). Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) genetic polymorphisms and psychiatric disorders: A HuGE review. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj347

Glombiewski, J. A., Bernardy, K., & Häuser, W. (2013). Efficacy of EMG- and EEG-biofeedback in fibromyalgia syndrome: A meta-analysis and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 962741. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/962741

Gloss, D., Varma, J. K., Pringsheim, T., & Nuwer, M. R. (2016). Practice advisory: The utility of EEG theta/beta power ratio in ADHD diagnosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 87(22), 2375-2379. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003265

Golshan, F., Sun, G., Francisco, J., Alibolandi, P., Zade, M. N., Mousavi, A., Lysenko, R., O'Connell, M. E., Block, H., Masiowski, P., & Mickleborough, M. J. S. (2025). Randomized controlled trial of neurofeedback mindfulness meditation as a practice for migraine management. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 142, Article 111685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111685

Grin-Yatsenko, V. A., Othmer, S., Ponomarev, V. A., Evdokimov, S. A., Konoplev, Y. Y., & Kropotov, J. D. (2018). Infra-low frequency neurofeedback in depression: Three case studies. NeuroRegulation, 5(1), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.15540/nr.5.1.30

Groom, M. J., Cahill, J. D., Bates, A. T., Jackson, G. M., Calton, T. G., Liddle, P. F., & Hollis, C. (2010). Electrophysiological indices of abnormal error-processing in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(1), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02128.x

Gruzelier, J., Inoue, A., Smart, R., Steed, A., & Steffert, T. (2010). Acting performance and flow state enhanced with sensory-motor rhythm neurofeedback comparing ecologically valid immersive VR and training screen scenarios. Neuroscience Letters, 480(2), 112-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.06.019

Häger, L., Åsberg Johnels, J., Kropotov, J., Weidle, B., Hollup, S., Zehentbauer, P., Gillberg, C., Billstedt, E., & Ogrim, G. (2021). Biomarker support for ADHD diagnosis based on event related potentials and scores from an attention test. Psychiatry Research, 300, 113879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113879

Hamburg, M. A., & Collins, F. S. (2010). The path to personalized medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(4), 301-304. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1006304

Hammond, D. C. (2003). QEEG-guided neurofeedback in the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Neurotherapy, 7(2), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v07n02_03

Hammond, D. C. (2004). Treatment of the obsessional subtype of obsessive compulsive disorder with neurofeedback. Biofeedback, 32(1), 9-12.

Hammond, D. C. (2005). Neurofeedback treatment of depression and anxiety. Journal of Adult Development, 12(2-3), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-005-7029-5

Hasin, D. S., Sarvet, A. L., Meyers, J. L., Saha, T. D., Ruan, W. J., Stohl, M., & Grant, B. F. (2018). Epidemiology of adult DSM-5 major depressive disorder and its specifiers in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(4), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4602

Hertenstein, E., Feige, B., Gmeiner, T., Kienzler, C., Spiegelhalder, K., Johann, A., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Palagini, L., Rücker, G., Riemann, D., & Baglioni, C. (2019). Insomnia as a predictor of mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 43, 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2018.10.006

Hesam-Shariati, N., Chang, W.-J., Wewege, M. A., McAuley, J. H., Booth, A., Trost, Z., Lin, C.-T., Newton-John, T., & Gustin, S. M. (2022). The analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback for people with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Neurology, 29(3), 921-936. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15189

Hoepner, C. T., McIntyre, R. S., & Papakostas, G. I. (2021). Impact of supplementation and nutritional interventions on pathogenic processes of mood disorders: A review of the evidence. Nutrients, 13(3), 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030767

Imel, Z. E., Laska, K., Jakupcak, M., & Simpson, T. L. (2013). Meta-analysis of dropout in treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(3), 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031474

Jacobs, E. H., & Jensen, M. P. (2015). EEG neurofeedback in the treatment of chronic pain: A case series. NeuroRegulation, 2(2), 86-102. https://doi.org/10.15540/nr.2.2.86

Jaffe, J. H. (1980). Drug addiction and drug abuse. In A. G. Gilman, L. S. Goodman, & A. Gilman (Eds.), Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. Macmillan.

Jain, R., Manning, S., & Cutler, A. J. (2019). Good, better, best: Clinical scenarios for the use of L-methylfolate in patients with MDD. CNS Spectrums, 25(6), 750-764. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852919001469

Jensen, M., Alanis, J. C. G., Hüttenrauch, E., Winther-Jensen, M., Chavanon, M.-L., Andersson, G., & Weise, C. (2023). Does it matter what is trained? A randomized controlled trial evaluating the specificity of alpha/delta ratio neurofeedback in reducing tinnitus symptoms. Brain Communications, 5(4), Article fcad185. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad185

Jensen, M. P., Grierson, C., Tracy-Smith, V., Bacigalupi, S. C., & Othmer, S. (2007). Neurofeedback treatment for pain associated with complex regional pain syndrome type I. Journal of Neurotherapy, 11(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v11n01_04

Jensen, M. P., Sherlin, L. H., Hakimian, S., & Fregni, F. (2009). Neuromodulatory approaches for chronic pain management: Research findings and clinical implications. Journal of Neurotherapy, 13(4), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10874200903334371

Jeong, Y. D., Son, Y., Jeon, S., Cho, H., Ryuk, S. W., Jo, Y., Fond, G., Boyer, L., Smith, L., Cortese, S., Fusar-Poli, P., Yon, D. K., & Solmi, M. (2026). Global prevalence of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: A systematic review and modeling study. American Journal of Psychiatry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250944

Johns Hopkins Medicine. (n.d.). Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/peripheral-neuropathy/chemotherapy-induced-peripheral-neuropathy

Jokić-Begić, N., & Begić, D. (2003). Quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 57(5), 351-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480310002688

Joveini, G., Shahverdi, M., Sayyahi, F., Heidarpour, F., & Hojati Abed, E. (2024). Systematic review of neurofeedback interventions for dyslexia: Methodological insights and International Classification of Function and Disability-Child and Youth (ICF-CY) framework analysis. Applied Neuropsychology: Child. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2024.2434561

Kaiser, A., Aggensteiner, P.-M., Baumeister, S., Holz, N., Banaschewski, T., & Brandeis, D. (2020). Earlier versus later cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs) in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.019

Kayıran, S., Dursun, E., Dursun, N., Ermutlu, N., & Karamürsel, S. (2010). Neurofeedback intervention in fibromyalgia syndrome; a randomized, controlled, rater blind clinical trial. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 35(4), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-010-9135-9

Kaźmierczak-Mytkowska, A., Butwicka, A., Lucci, K., Wolańczyk, T., & Bryńska, A. (2022). The functioning of families of teens with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Psychiatria Polska, 56(4), 889-902. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/128372

Keller, I. (2001). Neurofeedback therapy of attention deficits in patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotherapy, 5(1-2), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v05n01_03

Keller, I., Hülsdunk, A., & Müller, F. (2015). The influence of neurofeedback training on physiological arousal and attention in three patients in the state of unresponsive wakefulness. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 40(4), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-015-9296-7

Kerson, C., Lubar, J., deBeus, R., Pan, X., Rice, R., Allen, T., Yazbeck, M., Sah, S., Dhawan, Y., Zong, W., Roley-Roberts, M. E., & Arnold, L. E. (2023). EEG connectivity in ADHD compared to a normative database: A cohort analysis of 120 subjects from the ICAN study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 48(2), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-022-09569-9

Khazan, I., Shaffer, F., Moss, D., Lyle, R., & Rosenthal, S. (Eds.). (2023). Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Khoja, O., Mulvey, M., Astill, S., Tan, A. L., & Sivan, M. (2024). New-onset chronic musculoskeletal pain following COVID-19 infection fulfils the fibromyalgia clinical syndrome criteria: A preliminary study. Biomedicines, 12(9), 1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12091940

Kim, R. J., & Becker, R. C. (2003). Association between factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A, and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T mutations and events of the arterial circulatory system: A meta-analysis of published studies. American Heart Journal, 146(6), 948-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00519-2

Kimura, I., Noyama, H., Onagawa, R., Takemi, M., Osu, R., & Kawahara, J.-I. (2024). Efficacy of neurofeedback training for improving attentional performance in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Imaging Neuroscience, 2, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00053

Kobau, R., Luncheon, C., & Greenlund, K. (2023). Active epilepsy prevalence among U.S. adults. Epilepsy & Behavior, 142, 109180.

Kobau, R., Luncheon, C., & Greenlund, K. J. (2024). About 1.5 million community-dwelling US adults with active epilepsy reported uncontrolled seizures. Epilepsy & Behavior, 157, 109852.

Koberda, J. L. (2015). LORETA z-score neurofeedback effectiveness in rehabilitation of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurology and Neurobiology, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.16966/2379-7150.113

Kong, X.-Z., Boedhoe, P. S. W., Abe, Y., Alonso, P., Ameis, S. H., Arnold, P. D., Assogna, F., Baker, J. T., Batistuzzo, M. C., Benedetti, F., Beucke, J. C., Bollettini, I., Bose, A., Brem, S., Brennan, B. P., Buitelaar, J., Busatto, G. F., Calvo, A., Calvo, R., . . . Francks, C. (2020). Mapping cortical and subcortical asymmetry in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Findings from the ENIGMA Consortium. Biological Psychiatry, 87(12), 1022-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.04.022

Konicar, L., Radev, S., Prillinger, K., Klöbl, M., Diehm, R., Birbaumer, N., Lanzenberger, R., Plener, P. L., & Poustka, L. (2021). Volitional modification of brain activity in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A Bayesian analysis of slow cortical potential neurofeedback. NeuroImage: Clinical, 29, Article 102557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102557

Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2010). Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 217-238. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.110

Koonalintip, P., Phillips, K., & Wakerley, B. R. (2024). Medication-overuse headache: Update on management. Life, 14(9), 1146. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091146

Kopřivová, J., Congedo, M., Raszka, M., Praško, J., Brunovský, M., & Horáček, J. (2013). Prediction of treatment response and the effect of independent component neurofeedback in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind study. Neuropsychobiology, 67(4), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1159/000347087

Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768-821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327

Kouijzer, M. E. J., de Moor, J. M. H., Gerrits, B. J. L., Congedo, M., & van Schie, H. T. (2009). Neurofeedback improves executive functioning in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(1), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.05.001

Kouijzer, M. E. J., van Schie, H. T., de Moor, J. M. H., Gerrits, B. J. L., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2010). Neurofeedback treatment in autism. Preliminary findings in behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiological functioning. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3), 386-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.007

Kouijzer, M. E. J., van Schie, H. T., Gerrits, B. J. L., Buitelaar, J. K., & de Moor, J. M. H. (2013). Is EEG-biofeedback an effective treatment in autism spectrum disorders? A randomized controlled trial. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 38(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-012-9204-3

Krepel, N., van Dijk, H., Sack, A. T., Swatzyna, R. J., & Arns, M. (2021). To spindle or not to spindle: A replication study into spindling excessive beta as a transdiagnostic EEG feature associated with impulse control. Biological Psychology, 165, 108188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108188

Kung, P.-H., Davey, C. G., Harrison, B. J., Jamieson, A. J., Felmingham, K. L., & Steward, T. (2023). Frontoamygdalar effective connectivity in youth depression and treatment response. Biological Psychiatry, 94(12), 959-968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.06.009

Kwan, Y., Yoon, S., Suh, S., & Choi, S. (2022). A randomized controlled trial comparing neurofeedback and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia patients: Pilot study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 47(2), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-022-09534-6

LaMarca, K., Gevirtz, R., Lincoln, A. J., & Pineda, J. A. (2023). Brain-computer interface training of mu EEG rhythms in intellectually impaired children with autism: A feasibility case series. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 48(2), 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-022-09576-w

Lanius, R. A., Frewen, P. A., Tursich, M., Jetly, R., & McKinnon, M. C. (2015). Restoring large-scale brain networks in PTSD and related disorders: A proposal for neuroscientifically-informed treatment interventions. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6(1), Article 27313. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.27313

Launer, L. J., Terwindt, G. M., & Ferrari, M. D. (1999). The prevalence and characteristics of migraine in a population-based cohort: The GEM study. Neurology, 53(3), 537-542. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.53.3.537

Lawson, K. (2020). Sleep dysfunction in fibromyalgia and therapeutic approach options. OBM Neurobiology, 4(1), 049. https://doi.org/10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2001049

Lefler, E. K., Flory, K., Canu, W. H., Willcutt, E. G., & Hartung, C. M. (2021). Unique considerations in the assessment of ADHD in college students. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 43(4), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2021.1936462

Lenartowicz, A., Mazaheri, A., Jensen, O., & Loo, S. K. (2018). Aberrant modulation of brain oscillatory activity and attentional impairment in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.09.009

Levine, B., Kovacevic, N., Nica, E. I., Cheung, G., Gao, F., Schwartz, M. L., & Black, S. E. (2008). The Toronto traumatic brain injury study: Injury severity and quantified MRI. Neurology, 70(10), 771-778. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000304108.32283.aa

Li, Y., Wu, J., Liu, N., Li, X., Zhou, T., & Kang, J. (2026). Disentangling oscillatory and aperiodic neural activity in autism: A spectral parameterization analysis of neurofeedback intervention. Behavioural Brain Research, 514, Article 116396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2026.116396

Li, Z., Liu, H., Liu, C., Liu, F., & Liu, B. (2026). Effects of EEG neurofeedback and training interventions on golf putting performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1736851. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1736851

Lin, H.-Y., Tseng, W.-Y. I., Lai, M.-C., Matsuo, K., & Gau, S. S.-F. (2015). Altered resting-state frontoparietal control network in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 21(4), 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771500020X

Liu, S., Hao, X., Liu, X., He, Y., Zhang, L., An, X., Song, X., & Ming, D. (2022). Sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback training relieves anxiety in healthy people. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 16, 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-021-09732-8

Lo, L.-C., Hatfield, B. D., Janjigian, K., Wang, Y.-S., Fong, D.-Y., & Hung, T.-M. (2025). The effect of left temporal EEG neurofeedback training on cerebral cortical activity and precision cognitive-motor performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 96(3), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2024.2441149

López-Zamora, M., Porcar-Gozalbo, N., Rodríguez Moreno, M., Cano-Villagrasa, A., & Bandera Pastor, L. (2026). Efficacy of neurofeedback in the treatment of dyslexia: A systematic review. Annals of Dyslexia, 76(1), 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-025-00335-0

Louthrenoo, O., Boonchooduang, N., Likhitweerawong, N., Charoenkwan, K., & Srisurapanont, M. (2022). The effects of neurofeedback on executive functioning in children with ADHD: A meta-analysis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(7), 976-984. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547211045738

Lu, T.-H., Hsieh, T.-H., Wang, Y.-H., Shaw, F.-Z., Chen, P. S., & Liang, S.-F. (2025). Evaluation of alpha neurofeedback training to enhance sleep in remitted depression and anxiety sufferers with persistent insomnia. Psychiatry Research, 346, Article 116401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116401

Lubar, J. F. (1995). Neurofeedback for the management of ADHD. In M. S. Schwartz (Ed.), Biofeedback: A practitioner's guide (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Lubar, J. F., & Shouse, M. N. (1976). EEG and behavioral changes in a hyperkinetic child concurrent with training of the sensorimotor rhythm (SMR): A preliminary report. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 1(3), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01001170

Lubar, J. F., Swartwood, M. O., Swartwood, J. N., & O'Donnell, P. H. (1995). Evaluation of the effectiveness of EEG neurofeedback training for ADHD in a clinical setting as measured by changes in T.O.V.A. scores, behavioral ratings, and WISC-R performance. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 20(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01712768

Lubar, J. O., & Lubar, J. F. (1984). Electroencephalographic biofeedback of SMR and beta for treatment of attention deficit disorders in a clinical setting. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 9(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998842

Lucock, M. (2000). Folic acid: Nutritional biochemistry, molecular biology, and role in disease processes. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, 71(1-2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1006/mgme.2000.3027

Lynch, C. J., Elbau, I. G., Ng, T., Ayaz, A., Zhu, S., Wolk, D., Manfredi, N., Johnson, M., Chang, M., Chou, J., Summerville, I., Ho, C., Lueckel, M., Bukhari, H., Buchanan, D., Victoria, L. W., Solomonov, N., Goldwaser, E., Moia, S., Caballero-Gaudes, C., … Liston, C. (2024). Frontostriatal salience network expansion in individuals in depression. Nature, 633(8030), 624-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07805-2

Martin, P. R., & Elkind, A. H. (2005). Diagnosis and classification of primary headache disorders. In S. J. Baskin & F. G. Freitag (Eds.), Standards of care for headache diagnosis and treatment. National Headache Foundation.

Maruf, A. A., Poweleit, E. A., Brown, L. C., Strawn, J. R., & Bousman, C. A. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of L-methylfolate augmentation in depressive disorders. Pharmacopsychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1681-2047

May, A., Bahra, A., Büchel, C., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Goadsby, P. J. (1998). Hypothalamic activation in cluster headache attacks. The Lancet, 352(9124), 275-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)02470-2

McGrady, A., & Moss, D. (2013). Pathways to illness, pathways to health. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1379-1

Meehan, Z. M., & Shaffer, F. (2023). Tinnitus. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Meehan, Z. M., Shaffer, F., & Zerr, C. L. (2023). Depression. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Mennella, R., Patron, E., & Palomba, D. (2017). Frontal alpha asymmetry neurofeedback for the reduction of negative affect and anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 92, 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.02.002

Millea, P. J., & Brody, J. J. (2002). Tension-type headache. American Family Physician, 66(5), 797-804.

Miller, A. P., Baranger, D. A. A., Paul, S. E., Garavan, H., Mackey, S., Tapert, S. F., LeBlanc, K. H., Agrawal, A., & Bogdan, R. (2024). Neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation in late childhood and early adolescence. JAMA Network Open, 7(12), e2452027. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52027

Milovanovic, M., & Grujicic, R. (2021). Electroencephalography in assessment of autism spectrum disorders: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 686021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.686021

Monastra, V. J., Monastra, D. M., & George, S. (2002). The effects of stimulant therapy, EEG biofeedback, and parenting style on the primary symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 27(4), 231-249.

Moshkani Farahani, D., Tavallaie, S. A., Ahmadi, K., Fathi Ashtiani, A., Sheikh, M., & Yahaghi, E. (2014). Comparison of neurofeedback and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation efficacy on treatment of primary headaches: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 16(7), Article e17799. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.17799

Moss, D., Shaffer, F., & Watkins, M. (2023). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 404-424). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Murray, A. L., Ribeaud, D., Eisner, M., Murray, G., & McKenzie, K. (2019). Should we subtype ADHD according to the context in which symptoms occur? Criterion validity of recognising context-based ADHD presentations. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 50, 308-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-018-0842-4

Mussigmann, T., Bardel, B., Créange, A., Senova, S., Goujon, C., Gendre, T., Sène, D., Antoniol, C., Vialatte, F., & Lefaucheur, J.-P. (2025). Relieving chronic neuropathic pain with EEG-neurofeedback. European Journal of Neurology, 32(9), Article e70363. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.70363

Mussigmann, T., Bardel, B., & Lefaucheur, J.-P. (2022). Resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) biomarkers of chronic neuropathic pain. A systematic review. NeuroImage, 258, Article 119351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119351

National Research Council. (2011). Toward precision medicine: Building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease. National Academies Press.

Nelson, D. V., Bennett, R. M., Barkhuizen, A., Sexton, G. J., Jones, K. D., Esty, M. L., Ochs, L., & Donaldson, C. C. S. (2010). Neurotherapy of fibromyalgia? Pain Medicine, 11(6), 912-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00862.x

Nguyen, T. T., Hathaway, H., Kosciolek, T., Knight, R., & Jeste, D. V. (2021). Gut microbiome in serious mental illnesses: A systematic review and critical evaluation. Schizophrenia Research, 234, 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.08.026

Nicholson, A. A., Densmore, M., Frewen, P. A., Neufeld, R. W. J., Théberge, J., Jetly, R., Lanius, R. A., & Ros, T. (2023). Homeostatic normalization of alpha brain rhythms within the default-mode network and reduced symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder following a randomized controlled trial of electroencephalogram neurofeedback. Brain Communications, 5(2), Article fcad068. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad068

Nijs, J., Malfliet, A., & Nishigami, T. (2023). Nociplastic pain and central sensitization in patients with chronic pain conditions: A terminology update for clinicians. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 27(3), 100518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2023.100518

Palagini, L., Miniati, M., Caruso, V., Alfi, G., Geoffroy, P. A., Domschke, K., Riemann, D., Gemignani, A., & Pini, S. (2024). Insomnia, anxiety and related disorders: A systematic review on clinical and therapeutic perspective with potential mechanisms underlying their complex link. Neuroscience Applied, 3, Article 103936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nsa.2024.103936

Pan, L.-L. H., Ling, Y.-H., Wang, S.-J., Al-Hassany, L., Chen, W.-T., Chiang, C.-C., Cho, S.-J., Chu, M. K., Coppola, G., Pietra, A. D., Dong, Z., Ekizoglu, E., Els, C., Farham, F., Garcia-Azorin, D., Ha, W.-S., Hsiao, F.-J., Ishii, R., Kim, B.-K., Kissani, N., . . . Martelletti, P. (2025). Hallmarks of primary headache: Part 2. Tension-type headache. The Journal of Headache and Pain, 26(1), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-025-02098-w

Patel, K., Sutherland, H., Henshaw, J., Taylor, J. R., Brown, C. A., Casson, A. J., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., Jones, A. K. P., & Sivan, M. (2020). Effects of neurofeedback in the management of chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. European Journal of Pain, 24(8), 1440-1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1612

Pathak, A., Kelleher, E. M., Brennan, I., Amarnani, R., Wall, A., Murphy, R., Lee, H., Fordham, B., & Irani, A. (2025). Treatments for enhancing sleep quality in fibromyalgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology, 64(8), 4495-4516. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaf147

Paudel, P., & Sah, A. (2025). Efficacy of biofeedback for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 90, 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2025.103153

Pelham, W. E., & Fabiano, G. A. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(1), 184-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701818681

Peniston, E. G., & Kulkosky, P. J. (1989). Alpha-theta brainwave training and beta-endorphin levels in alcoholics. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 13(2), 271-279.

Peniston, E. G., & Kulkosky, P. J. (1991). Alpha-theta brainwave neurofeedback for Vietnam veterans with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical Psychotherapy, 4(1), 47-60.

Perera, M. P. N., Bailey, N. W., Herring, S. E., & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2019). Electrophysiology of obsessive compulsive disorder: A systematic review of the electroencephalographic literature. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 62, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.11.001

Perez, T. M., Adhia, D. B., Glue, P., Zeng, J., Dillingham, P., Navid, M. S., Niazi, I. K., Young, C. K., Smith, M., & De Ridder, D. (2025). Infraslow closed-loop brain training for anxiety and depression (ISAD): A pilot randomised, sham-controlled trial in adult females with internalizing disorders. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 25(4), 1147-1180. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01279-z

Peris, T. S., & Miklowitz, D. J. (2015). Parental expressed emotion and youth psychopathology: New directions for an old construct. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46, 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0526-7

Peskind, E. R., Brody, D., Cernak, I., McKee, A., & Ruff, R. L. (2013). Military- and sports-related mild traumatic brain injury: Clinical presentation, management, and long-term consequences. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(2), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.12011co1c

Pineault, D. (2024). The bidirectional association between tinnitus and mental well-being: Clinical implications for audiologists. Canadian Audiologist, 11(2). https://canadianaudiologist.ca/issue/volume-11-issue-2-2024/the-bidirectional-association-between-tinnitus-mental-well-being-clinical-implications-for-audiologists/

Pineda, J. A., Brang, D., Hecht, E., Edwards, L., Carey, S., Bacon, M., Futagaki, C., Suk, D., Tom, J., Birnbaum, C., & Rork, A. (2008). Positive behavioral and electrophysiological changes following neurofeedback training in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(3), 557-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2007.12.003

Pinheiro, E. S. S., Queirós, F. C., Montoya, P., Santos, C. L., Nascimento, M. A., Ito, C. H., Silva, M., Nunes Santos, D. B., Benevides, S., Miranda, J. G. V., Sá, K. N., & Baptista, A. F. (2016). Electroencephalographic patterns in chronic pain: A systematic review of the literature. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0149085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149085

Piras, F., Piras, F., Caltagirone, C., & Spalletta, G. (2013). Brain circuitries of obsessive compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(10), 2856-2877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.008

Pizzoli, S. F. M., Marzorati, C., Gatti, D., Monzani, D., Mazzocco, K., & Pravettoni, G. (2021). A meta-analysis on heart rate variability biofeedback and depressive symptoms. Scientific Reports, 11, 6650.

Poil, S.-S., Bollmann, S., Ghisleni, C., O'Gorman, R., Klaver, P., Ball, J., Eich-Höchli, D., Brandeis, D., & Michels, L. (2014). Age dependent electroencephalographic changes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(8), 1626-1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.12.118

Polich, G., Gray, S., Tran, D., Morales-Quezada, L., & Glenn, M. (2020). Comparing focused attention meditation to meditation with mobile neurofeedback for persistent symptoms after mild-moderate traumatic brain injury: A pilot study. Brain Injury, 34(10), 1408-1415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2020.1802781

PracticeWise. (2026). PracticeWise blue menu of evidence-based psychosocial interventions. PracticeWise, LLC. https://www.practicewise.com

Prinsloo, S. (2023). Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 191-194). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Prinsloo, S., Kaptchuk, T. J., De Ridder, D., Lyle, R., Bruera, E., Novy, D., Barcenas, C. H., & Cohen, L. G. (2024). Brain-computer interface relieves chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer, 130(2), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35027

Quinn, P. O., & Madhoo, M. (2014). A review of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in women and girls: Uncovering this hidden diagnosis. Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.13r01596

Rance, M., Zhao, Z., Zaboski, B., Kichuk, S. A., Romaker, E., Koller, W. N., Walsh, C., Harris-Starling, C., Wasylink, S., Adams, T., Jr., Gruner, P., Pittenger, C., & Hampson, M. (2023). Neurofeedback for obsessive compulsive disorder: A randomized, double-blind trial. Psychiatry Research, 328, Article 115458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115458

Rangaswamy, M., Porjesz, B., Chorlian, D. B., Wang, K., Jones, K. A., Bauer, L. O., Rohrbaugh, J., O’Connor, S. J., Kuperman, S., Reich, T., & Begleiter, H. (2002). Beta power in the EEG of alcoholics. Biological Psychiatry, 52(8), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01362-8

Rauter, A., Schneider, H., & Prinz, W. (2022). Effectivity of ILF neurofeedback on autism spectrum disorder—A case study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 892296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.892296

Ray, J. G., & Laskin, C. A. (1999). Folic acid and homocyst(e)ine metabolic defects and the risk of placental abruption, pre-eclampsia and spontaneous pregnancy loss: A systematic review. Placenta, 20(7), 519-529. https://doi.org/10.1053/plac.1999.0417

Recio-Rodriguez, J. I., Fernandez-Crespo, M., Sanchez-Aguadero, N., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Garcia-Yu, I. A., Alonso-Dominguez, R., Chiu, H.-Y., Tsai, P.-S., Lee, H.-C., & Rihuete-Galve, M. I. (2024). Neurofeedback to enhance sleep quality and insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 18, Article 1450163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1450163

Reynolds, E. H. (2002). Folic acid, ageing, depression, and dementia. BMJ, 324(7352), 1512-1515. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7352.1512

Rice, D. A., Ozolins, C., Biswas, R., Almesfer, F., Zeng, I., Parikh, A., Vile, W. G., Rashid, U., Graham, J., & Kluger, M. T. (2024). Home-based EEG neurofeedback for the treatment of chronic pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial. The Journal of Pain, 25(11), Article 104651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104651

Riesel, A. (2019). The erring brain: Error-related negativity as an endophenotype for OCD—A review and meta-analysis. Psychophysiology, 56(4), Article e13348. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13348

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Bogg, T. (2005). Conscientiousness and health across the life course. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.156

Roffman, J. L., Petruzzi, L. J., Tanner, A. S., Brown, H. E., Eryilmaz, H., Ho, N. F., Giegold, M., Silverstein, N. J., Bottiglieri, T., Manoach, D. S., Smoller, J. W., Henderson, D. C., & Goff, D. C. (2017). Biochemical, physiological and clinical effects of L-methylfolate in schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial. Molecular Psychiatry, 23(2), 316-322. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.41

Roffman, J. L., Weiss, A. P., Purcell, S., Caffalette, C. A., Freudenreich, O., Henderson, D. C., Bottiglieri, T., Wong, D. H., Halsted, C. H., & Goff, D. C. (2008). Contribution of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms to negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 63(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.12.017

Ros, T., Frewen, P., Théberge, J., Michela, A., Kluetsch, R., Mueller, A., Candrian, G., Jetly, R., Vuilleumier, P., & Lanius, R. A. (2017). Neurofeedback tunes scale-free dynamics in spontaneous brain activity. Cerebral Cortex, 27(10), 4911-4922. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw285

Rosenfeld, J. V., McFarlane, A. C., Bragge, P., Armonda, R. A., Grimes, J. B., & Ling, G. S. (2013). Blast-related traumatic brain injury. The Lancet Neurology, 12(9), 882-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70161-3

Rosenthal, S. (2023). Chronic pain. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 200-224). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Rossiter, T. R., & La Vaque, T. J. (1995). A comparison of EEG biofeedback and psychostimulants in treating attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders. Journal of Neurotherapy, 1(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v01n01_07

Roth, T. (2007). Insomnia: Definition, prevalence, etiology, and consequences. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 3(5 Suppl), S7-S10. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.26929

Roy, R., de la Vega, R., Jensen, M. P., & Miró, J. (2020). Neurofeedback for pain management: A systematic review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, Article 671. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00671

Ruscio, A. M., Stein, D. J., Chiu, W. T., & Kessler, R. C. (2010). The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Molecular Psychiatry, 15(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.94

Russo, G. M., Balkin, R. S., & Lenz, A. S. (2022). A meta-analysis of neurofeedback for treating anxiety-spectrum disorders. Journal of Counseling & Development, 100(3), 236-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12424

Sakuma, K., Matsunaga, S., Nomura, I., Okuya, M., Kishi, T., & Iwata, N. (2018). Folic acid/methylfolate for the treatment of psychopathology in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology, 235(8), 2303-2314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-4926-4

SAMHSA. (2023). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Sanader Vukadinovic, B. (2025). Neurofeedback in substance and non substance-related addictions: A mini review of current evidence and future directions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, Article 1716390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1716390

Santhosh-Kumar, C. R., Deutsch, J. C., Ryder, J. W., & Kolhouse, J. F. (1997). Unpredictable intra-individual variations in serum homocysteine levels on folic acid supplementation. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51(3), 188-192. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600385

Sateia, M. J., Buysse, D. J., Krystal, A. D., Neubauer, D. N., & Heald, J. L. (2017). Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 13(2), 307-349. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.6470

Schimmelpfennig, J., Topczewski, J., Zajkowski, W., & Jankowiak-Siuda, K. (2023). The role of the salience network in cognitive and affective deficits. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 1133367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1133367

Schulte, L. H., & May, A. (2016). The migraine generator revisited: Continuous scanning of the migraine cycle over 30 days and three spontaneous attacks. Brain, 139(7), 1987-1993. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww097

Schuurman, B. B., Lousberg, R. L., Schreiber, J. U., van Amelsvoort, T. A. M. J., & Vossen, C. J. (2024). A scoping review of the effect of EEG neurofeedback on pain complaints in adults with chronic pain. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(10), Article 2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102813

Scott, W. C., Kaiser, D., Othmer, S., & Sideroff, S. I. (2005). Effects of an EEG biofeedback protocol on a mixed substance abusing population. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31(3), 455-469.

Seppä, S., Huikari, S., Korhonen, M., Nordström, T., Hurtig, T., & Halt, A.-H. (2024). Associations of symptoms of ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in adolescence with occupational outcomes and incomes in adulthood. Journal of Attention Disorders, 28(10), 1392-1405. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547241259329

Shah, N., Asuncion, R. M. D., & Hameed, S. (2024). Muscle contraction tension headache. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562274/

Shouse, M. N., & Lubar, J. F. (1979). Operant conditioning of EEG rhythms and Ritalin in the treatment of hyperkinesis. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 4(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998960

Silk, T. J., Malpas, C. B., Beare, R., Efron, D., Anderson, V., Hazell, P., Jongeling, B., Nicholson, J. M., & Sciberras, E. (2019). A network analysis approach to ADHD symptoms: More than the sum of its parts. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0211053. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211053

Siniatchkin, M., Hierundar, A., Kropp, P., Kuhnert, R., Gerber, W.-D., & Stephani, U. (2000). Self-regulation of slow cortical potentials in children with migraine: An exploratory study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 25(1), 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009581321624

Smith, M. L., Leiderman, L. M., & de Vries, J. (2017). Infra-slow fluctuation (ISF) training for autism spectrum disorders. In T. F. Collura & J. A. Frederick (Eds.), Handbook of clinical QEEG and neurotherapy (pp. 488-499). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315754093-42

Sokhadze, E. M. (2023). Autism spectrum disorder. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed., pp. 136-144). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Sokhadze, T. M., Cannon, R. L., & Trudeau, D. L. (2008). EEG biofeedback as a treatment for substance use disorders: Review, rating of efficacy, and recommendations for further research. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 33(1), 1-28.

Solanto, M. V. (2002). Dopamine dysfunction in AD/HD: Integrating clinical and basic neuroscience research. Behavioural Brain Research, 130(1-2), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00431-4

Soler-Gutiérrez, A.-M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Mayas, J. (2023). Evidence of emotion dysregulation as a core symptom of adult ADHD: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 18(1), e0280131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280131

Soroosh, S. G., & Farbod, A. (2024). Epidemiology of fibromyalgia: East versus West. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 27(12), e15428. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.15428

Spencer, T. J., Biederman, J., & Mick, E. (2007). ADHD: Diagnosis, lifespan, comorbidities, and neurobiology. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7, 73-81.

Sterman, M. B. (2000). Basic concepts and clinical findings in the treatment of seizure disorders with EEG operant conditioning. Clinical Electroencephalography, 31(1), 45-55.

Sterman, M. B. (2010). Biofeedback in the treatment of epilepsy. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 77(Suppl. 3), S60–S67. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.77.s3.11

Sterman, M. B., & Egner, T. (2006). Foundation and practice of neurofeedback for the treatment of epilepsy. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 31(1), 21-35.

Stevens, A. W., & Trotter, K. (2023). Concussion. In I. Khazan, F. Shaffer, D. Moss, R. Lyle, & S. Rosenthal (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback (4th ed.). Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Stokes, D. A., & Lappin, M. S. (2010). Neurofeedback and biofeedback with 37 migraineurs: A clinical outcome study. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-9

Stovner, L. J., Hagen, K., Linde, M., & Steiner, T. J. (2022). The global prevalence of headache: An update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. The Journal of Headache and Pain, 23(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01402-2

Strehl, U., Aggensteiner, P., Wachtlin, D., Brandeis, D., Albrecht, B., Arana, M., Bach, C., Banaschewski, T., Bogen, T., Flaig-Röhr, A., Freitag, C. M., Fuchsenberger, Y., Gest, S., Gevensleben, H., Herde, L., Hohmann, S., Legenbauer, T., Marx, A.-M., Millenet, S., . . . Holtmann, M. (2017). Neurofeedback of slow cortical potentials in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A multicenter randomized trial controlling for unspecific effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, Article 135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00135

Strehl, U., Birkle, S. M., Wörz, S., & Kotchoubey, B. (2014). Sustained reduction of seizures in patients with intractable epilepsy after self-regulation training of slow cortical potentials – 10 years after. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00604

Sürmeli, T., & Ertem, A. (2011). Obsessive compulsive disorder and the efficacy of qEEG-guided neurofeedback treatment: A case series. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 42(3), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/155005941104200310

Swanson, J. M., Arnold, L. E., Molina, B. S. G., Sibley, M. H., Hechtman, L. T., Hinshaw, S. P., & Wigal, T. (2017). Young adult outcomes in the follow-up of the multimodal treatment study of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Symptom persistence, source discrepancy, and height suppression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(6), 663-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12684

Swatzyna, R. J., Arns, M., Tarnow, J. D., Turner, R. P., Barr, E., MacInerney, E. K., Hoffman, A. M., & Boutros, N. N. (2020). Isolated epileptiform activity in children and adolescents: Prevalence, relevance, and implications for treatment. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01597-2

Swatzyna, R. J., Kozlowski, G. P., & Tarnow, J. D. (2015). Pharmaco-EEG: A study of individualized medicine in clinical practice. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 46(3), 192-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1550059414556120

Swatzyna, R. J., Morrow, L. M., Collins, D. M., Barr, E. A., Roark, A. J., & Turner, R. P. (2024). Evidentiary significance of routine EEG in refractory cases: A paradigm shift in psychiatry. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594231221313

Sylvia, L. G., Peters, A. T., Deckersbach, T., & Nierenberg, A. A. (2012). Nutrient-based therapies for bipolar disorder: A systematic review. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 82(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341309

Szeszko, P. R., Ardekani, B. A., Ashtari, M., Malhotra, A. K., Robinson, D. G., Bilder, R. M., & Lim, K. O. (2005). White matter abnormalities in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A diffusion tensor imaging study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(7), 782-790. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.7.782

Tan, G., Thornby, J., Hammond, D. C., Strehl, U., Canady, B., Arnemann, K., & Kaiser, D. A. (2009). Meta-analysis of EEG biofeedback in treating epilepsy. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 40(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/155005940904000310

Taylor, D. J., & Pruiksma, K. E. (2014). Cognitive and behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in psychiatric populations: A systematic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 26(2), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2014.902808

Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). Smoking and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Addiction, 99(4), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00687.x

Thatcher, R. W., North, D. M., & Biver, C. J. (2005). EEG and intelligence: Relations between EEG coherence, EEG phase delay and power. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(9), 2129-2141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2005.04.026

Thatcher, R. W., Walker, R. A., Gerson, I., & Geisler, F. H. (1989). EEG discriminant analyses of mild head trauma. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 73(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90188-0

Thompson, L., & Thompson, M. (1998). Neurofeedback combined with training in metacognitive strategies: Effectiveness in students with ADD. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 23(4), 243-263.

Tortora, G. J., & Derrickson, B. H. (2021). Principles of anatomy and physiology (16th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Tough, P. (2025). Have we been thinking about ADHD all wrong? The New York Times Magazine.

Tripp, G., & Wickens, J. R. (2024). The dopamine hypothesis for ADHD: An evaluation of evidence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1492126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1492126

Trivedi, C., Reddy, P., Rizvi, A., Husain, K., Brown, K., Mansuri, Z., Nabi, M., & Jain, S. (2024). Traumatic brain injury and risk of schizophrenia and other non-mood psychotic disorders: Findings from a large inpatient database in the United States. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 50(4), 924-930. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbae047

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023). Veterans Benefits Administration annual benefits report, fiscal year 2023. https://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/

van den Heuvel, O. A., van Wingen, G., Soriano-Mas, C., Alonso, P., Chamberlain, S. R., Nakamae, T., Denys, D., Goudriaan, A. E., & Veltman, D. J. (2016). Brain circuitry of compulsivity. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 26(5), 810-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.12.005

van der Kolk, B. A., Hodgdon, H., Gapen, M., Musicaro, R., Suvak, M. K., Hamlin, E., & Spinazzola, J. (2016). A randomized controlled study of neurofeedback for chronic PTSD. PLOS ONE, 11(12), Article e0166752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166752

Van Doren, J., Arns, M., Heinrich, H., Vollebregt, M. A., Strehl, U., & Loo, S. K. (2019). Sustained effects of neurofeedback in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1121-4

van Straten, A., Weinreich, K. J., Fábian, B., Reesen, J., Grigori, S., Luik, A. I., Harrer, M., & Lancee, J. (2025). The prevalence of insomnia disorder in the general population: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sleep Research, 34(5), Article e70089. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70089

van Strien, W. W. J., & Hollmann, M. W. (2025). Pain perception and modulation: Fundamental neurobiology and recent advances. European Journal of Neuroscience, 62(8), Article e70275. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.70275

Varker, T., Kartal, D., Watson, L., Freijah, I., O'Donnell, M., Forbes, D., Phelps, A., Hopwood, M., McFarlane, A., Cooper, J., Wade, D., Bryant, R., & Hinton, M. (2020). Defining response and nonresponse to posttraumatic stress disorder treatments: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 27(4), Article e12355. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12355

Verdejo-García, A., & Pérez-García, M. (2007). Profile of executive deficits in cocaine and heroin polysubstance users: Common and differential effects on separate executive components. Psychopharmacology, 190(4), 517-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0632-8

Versijpt, J., Paemeleire, K., Reuter, U., & MaassenVanDenBrink, A. (2025). Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted therapy in migraine: Current role and future perspectives. The Lancet, 405(10483), 1014-1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00109-6

Viviani, G., & Vallesi, A. (2021). EEG-neurofeedback and executive function enhancement in healthy adults: A systematic review. Psychophysiology, 58(9), Article e13874. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13874

Walker, J. E. (2011). QEEG-guided neurofeedback for recurrent migraine headaches. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 42(1), 59-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/155005941104200112

Walker, J. E., & Norman, C. A. (2006). The neurophysiology of dyslexia: A selective review with implications for neurofeedback remediation and results of treatment in twelve consecutive patients. Journal of Neurotherapy, 10(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v10n01_04

Walker, J. E., Norman, C. A., & Weber, R. K. (2002). Impact of qEEG-guided coherence training for patients with a mild closed head injury. Journal of Neurotherapy, 6(2), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v06n02_05

Waltzman, D., Black, L. I., Daugherty, J., Peterson, A. B., & Zablotsky, B. (2025). Prevalence of traumatic brain injury among adults and children. Annals of Epidemiology, 103, 40-47.

Wang, J., Barstein, J., Ethridge, L. E., Mosconi, M. W., Takarae, Y., & Sweeney, J. A. (2013). Resting state EEG abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 5(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1866-1955-5-24

Wang, T.-S., Wang, S.-S., Wang, C.-L., & Wong, S.-B. (2024). Theta/beta ratio in EEG correlated with attentional capacity assessed by Conners Continuous Performance Test in children with ADHD. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1305397.

Wang, X.-N., Zhang, T., Han, B.-C., Luo, W.-W., Liu, W.-H., Yang, Z.-Y., Disi, A., Sun, Y., & Yang, J.-C. (2024). Wearable EEG neurofeedback based-on machine learning algorithms for children with autism: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Current Medical Science, 44(6), 1141-1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-024-2938-3

Wilcken, B., Bamforth, F., Li, Z., Zhu, H., Ritvanen, A., & Czeizel, A. E. (2003). Geographical and ethnic variation of the 677C>T allele of 5,10 methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR): Findings from over 7,000 newborns from 16 areas worldwide. Journal of Medical Genetics, 40(8), 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.40.8.619

Winkeler, A., Winkeler, M., & Imgart, H. (2022). Infra-low frequency neurofeedback in the treatment of patients with chronic eating disorder and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 890682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.890682

Winslow, B. T., Vandal, C., & Dang, L. (2023). Fibromyalgia: Diagnosis and management. American Family Physician, 107(2), 137-144.

Wolraich, M. L., Hagan, J. F., Jr., Allan, C., Chan, E., Davison, D., Earls, M., Evans, S. W., Flinn, S. K., Froehlich, T., Frost, J., Holbrook, J. R., Lehmann, C. U., Lessin, H. R., Okechukwu, K., Pierce, K. L., Winner, J. D., & Zurhellen, W. (2019). Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 144(4), e20192528. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2528

World Health Organization. (2024). Epilepsy fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/epilepsy

Wu, Y.-L., Ding, X.-X., Sun, Y.-H., Yang, H.-Y., Chen, J., Zhao, X., Jiang, Y.-H., Lv, X.-L., & Wu, Z.-Q. (2013). Association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and depression: An updated meta-analysis of 26 studies. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 46, 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2013.06.015

Wu, Y.-L., Fang, S.-C., Chen, S.-C., Tai, C.-J., & Tsai, P.-S. (2021). Effects of neurofeedback on fibromyalgia: A randomized controlled trial. Pain Management Nursing, 22(6), 755-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2021.01.004

Xuan, C., Li, H., Zhao, J.-X., Wang, H.-W., Wang, Y., Ning, C.-P., Liu, Z., Zhang, B.-B., He, G.-W., & Lun, L.-M. (2014). Association between MTHFR polymorphisms and congenital heart disease: A meta-analysis based on 9,329 cases and 15,076 controls. Scientific Reports, 4, 7311. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07311

Yap, Y. C., King, A. E., Guijt, R. M., Jiang, T., Blizzard, C. A., Breadmore, M. C., & Dickson, T. C. (2017). Mild and repetitive very mild axonal stretch injury triggers cytoskeletal mislocalization and growth cone collapse. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0176997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176997

Yazdi-Ravandi, S., Taslimi, Z., Khosrowabadi, R., Shamsaei, F., Matinnia, N., Shams, J., Moghimbeigi, A., Ahmadpanah, M., & Ghaleiha, A. (2026). Neurofeedback as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy in OCD: A randomized controlled trial on symptom reduction. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 51(3), 553-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-025-09758-2

Yu, C.-L., Cheng, M.-Y., An, X., Chueh, T.-Y., Wu, J.-H., Wang, K.-P., & Hung, T.-M. (2025). The effect of EEG neurofeedback training on sport performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 35(5), Article e70055. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.70055

Zafarmand, M., Farahmand, Z., & Otared, N. (2022). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on effectiveness of neurofeedback for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Neurocase, 28(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2021.2019790

Zebhauser, P. T., Hohn, V. D., & Ploner, M. (2023). Resting-state electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography as biomarkers of chronic pain: A systematic review. Pain, 164(6), 1200-1221. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002825

Zhang, J., Wong, S. M., Richardson, J. D., Jetly, R., & Dunkley, B. T. (2020). Predicting PTSD severity using longitudinal magnetoencephalography with a multi-step learning framework. Journal of Neural Engineering, 17(6), Article 066013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/abc8d6

Zhang, K., Trambaiolli, L., Zhao, Z., Taschereau-Dumouchel, V., & Feusner, J. D. (2026). Neurofeedback interventions for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: Current evidence and future directions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 198, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2026.03.013

Zhang, Z., Ping, L., Zhai, A., & Zhou, C. (2021). Microstructural white matter abnormalities in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging studies. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, Article 102467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102467

Zhao, W., Van Someren, E. J. W., Li, C., Chen, X., Gui, W., Tian, Y., Liu, Y., & Lei, X. (2021). EEG spectral analysis in insomnia disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 59, Article 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101457

Zhong, X., Yuan, X., Dai, Y., Zhang, X., & Jiang, C. (2025). Neurofeedback training for executive function in ADHD children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 28148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94242-4

Zilberman, N., Yadid, G., Efrati, Y., Neumark, Y., & Rassovsky, Y. (2018). Personality profiles of substance and behavioral addictions. Addictive Behaviors, 82, 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.007

Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11555-000