Article

Clinical Neurofeedback: Case Studies, Proposed Mechanism, and Implications for Pediatric Neurology Practice

Georgetown University Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, Washington, DC 2000, USA.
Journal of child neurology (Impact Factor: 1.67). 05/2011; 26(8):1045-51. DOI: 10.1177/0883073811405052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Trends in alternative medicine use by American health care consumers are rising substantially. Extensive literature exists reporting on the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment of autism, closed head injury, insomnia, migraine, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, epilepsy, and posttraumatic stress disorder. We speculated that neurofeedback might serve as a therapeutic modality for patients with medically refractory neurological disorders and have begun referring patients to train with clinical neurofeedback practitioners. The modality is not always covered by insurance. Confident their child's medical and neurological needs would continue to be met, the parents of 3 children with epilepsy spectrum disorder decided to have their child train in the modality. The children's individual progress following neurofeedback are each presented here. A proposed mechanism and practice implications are discussed.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Siegfried Othmer, Feb 13, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
128 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuromodulation in the bioelectrical domain is an attractive option for the remediation of functionally based deficits. Most of the interest to date has focused on exogenous methods, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transient direct current stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and deep brain stimulation. Much less attention has been given to endogenous methods of exploiting latent brain plasticity. These have reached a level of sophistication and maturity that invites attention. Over the last 7 years, the domain of infralow frequencies has been exploited productively for the enhancement of neuroregulation. The principal mechanism is putatively the renormalization of functional connectivity of our resting-state networks. The endogeneous techniques are particularly attractive for the pediatric population, where they can be utilized before dysfunctional patterns of brain behavior become consolidated and further elaborated into clinical syndromes.
    Seminars in pediatric neurology 12/2013; 20(4):246-57. DOI:10.1016/j.spen.2013.10.006 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although many psychological disorders have significant basis in neurobiological dysfunction, most treatment approaches either neglect biological aspects of the problem, or approach dysfunction through pharmacological treatment alone, which may expose individuals to negative side effects. In recent decades, neurofeedback has been promoted as an alternative approach to treating neurobiological dysfunction. Neurofeedback helps individuals gain control over subtle brain activity fluctuations through real-time rewards for pre-established target brainwave frequencies at specific cortical locations. This paper reviews the effectiveness of neurofeedback in a range of conditions, including ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, substance use, PTSD, and learning difficulties. Neurofeedback has emerged as superior or equivalent to either alternative or no treatment in many of the examined studies, suggesting it produces some effects worthy of further examination. In light of its potential to address neurobiological dysfunction directly, future research is suggested in order to refine protocols, as well as to establish effectiveness and efficacy. Potential mechanisms of neurofeedback are discussed, including global connectivity, neuroplasticity, and reinforcement of the default mode network, central executive network, and salience network.
    Personality and Individual Differences 04/2013; 54(6):676–686. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.037 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that seizures are commonly associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the effectiveness of treatments for seizures has not been well studied in individuals with ASD. This manuscript reviews both traditional and novel treatments for seizures associated with ASD. Studies were selected by systematically searching major electronic databases and by a panel of experts that treat ASD individuals. Only a few anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) have undergone carefully controlled trials in ASD, but these trials examined outcomes other than seizures. Several lines of evidence point to valproate, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam as the most effective and tolerable AEDs for individuals with ASD. Limited evidence supports the use of traditional non-AED treatments, such as the ketogenic and modified Atkins diet, multiple subpial transections, immunomodulation, and neurofeedback treatments. Although specific treatments may be more appropriate for specific genetic and metabolic syndromes associated with ASD and seizures, there are few studies which have documented the effectiveness of treatments for seizures for specific syndromes. Limited evidence supports l-carnitine, multivitamins, and N-acetyl-l-cysteine in mitochondrial disease and dysfunction, folinic acid in cerebral folate abnormalities and early treatment with vigabatrin in tuberous sclerosis complex. Finally, there is limited evidence for a number of novel treatments, particularly magnesium with pyridoxine, omega-3 fatty acids, the gluten-free casein-free diet, and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic simulation. Zinc and l-carnosine are potential novel treatments supported by basic research but not clinical studies. This review demonstrates the wide variety of treatments used to treat seizures in individuals with ASD as well as the striking lack of clinical trials performed to support the use of these treatments. Additional studies concerning these treatments for controlling seizures in individuals with ASD are warranted.
    Frontiers in Public Health 01/2013; 1:31. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2013.00031