Figure 6 - uploaded by Siegfried Othmer
Content may be subject to copyright.
WISC-R subtest average gains for the present study plotted against the subtest average gains in the prior Tansey study. Correlation in the measures is indicated. The populations were not matched, so more specific comparisons are not warranted. (The Mazes subtest is not plotted because it was not characterized in the Tansey study.) 

WISC-R subtest average gains for the present study plotted against the subtest average gains in the prior Tansey study. Correlation in the measures is indicated. The populations were not matched, so more specific comparisons are not warranted. (The Mazes subtest is not plotted because it was not characterized in the Tansey study.) 

Source publication
Method
Full-text available
This monograph describes the research milestones by which the Othmer Method of neurofeedback came to be established over the past thirty years. It describes the essential elements of the method and furnishes a rationale for their inclusion.

Context in source publication

Context 1
... results of both studies were very similar in their particulars with respect to the subtests of the WISC. The correlation between them, shown in Figure 6, augurs for the validity of both. ...

Citations

Article
Full-text available
Background: Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often exhibit impairments in inhibitory control, which can impact their cognitive functioning. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Infra-Low Frequency (ILF) neurofeedback in improving inhibitory control among high-functioning adolescents with ASD. Methods: A single-blind, two-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted with 24 adolescents with ASD randomly divided into two groups (active and sham; n = 12 per group). Both groups participated in 15 sessions of one-hour ILF neurofeedback, three times per week. The ILF neurofeedback protocol was applied to the active group, while the sham group received an inactive intervention. Outcomes were measured at the pretest, post-test, and follow-up stages. Results: ILF neurofeedback significantly improved inhibitory control in adolescents with ASD, as indicated by improvements in behavioral measures and absolute power analysis. The most significant differences were observed in alpha, theta, and gamma waves located in the central areas of the left gyrus. However, no significant effect was observed at the follow-up level on either behavioral measures or absolute power. Conclusion: The results suggest that ILF neurofeedback is effective in improving inhibitory control in high-functioning adolescents with ASD. This non-invasive intervention has the potential to improve inhibitory control in this population. However, future research is needed to determine the long-term effects of ILF neurofeedback.