Microcurrent neurofeedback?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

futureapppsy2

Assistant professor
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
7,980
Reaction score
7,086
Anyone heard of this/have any thoughts on its validity? A student brought it up today in the context of trauma tx, and a super-quick lit search showed pretty much nothing.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Haven't heard of it. But, judging by the nature of the clinics that are offering this "treatment" my assumption is that this is a pseudoscience treatment. Willing to change that assumption if anyone has any legitimate research to support this, but I am doubtful.
 
Be very skeptical of anywhere and anyone who pushes ANY version of "neurofeedback"....as I have yet to see any data to actually support it. Biofeedback, obviously different because that actually has research support. Microcurrent neurofeedback is a new one, first time hearing of it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What is microcurrent neurofeedback?


Microcurrent neurofeedback is a safe, noninvasive, and revolutionary technology that utilizes an EEG unit and low-intensity pulses of energy to support the central nervous system. The energy is incredibly precise and gentle, only amounting to roughly 3-trillionths of a watt.
....So this is just Shock Therapy while hooked up to an EEG.
 
It's a 9 volt battery attached to some gator clips.
paris hilton thats hot GIF
 
Haven't heard of it. But, judging by the nature of the clinics that are offering this "treatment" my assumption is that this is a pseudoscience treatment. Willing to change that assumption if anyone has any legitimate research to support this, but I am doubtful.
Sigh, that's what I was assuming. We tend to have this occassional issue of students who are licensed at the master's level and in our programs to get administrative credentials signing up for sketchy, expensive trainings as part of their clinical day jobs, not telling the faculty about it, and then going on to think it's awesome, because their expensive training told them it was. At least they are implementing them alongside actual EBTs, so hopefully it's not doing harm (and maybe having a placebo effect as well?). I wish we could come up with a better way to prevent/address it, though.
 
Sigh, that's what I was assuming. We tend to have this occassional issue of students who are licensed at the master's level and in our programs to get administrative credentials signing up for sketchy, expensive trainings as part of their clinical day jobs, not telling the faculty about it, and then going on to think it's awesome, because their expensive training told them it was. At least they are implementing them alongside actual EBTs, so hopefully it's not doing harm (and maybe having a placebo effect as well?). I wish we could come up with a better way to prevent/address it, though.

Well, only in the sense that it cost the student money to get trained in it, and these placebo effects tend to not last very long, especially with trauma. I'd use this as a good teqaching opportunity. Ask the student to gather all of the empirical, peer-reviewed literature, on the subject, and then you can collaboratively review the evidence with them.
 
Well, only in the sense that it cost the student money to get trained in it, and these placebo effects tend to not last very long, especially with trauma. I'd use this as a good teqaching opportunity. Ask the student to gather all of the empirical, peer-reviewed literature, on the subject, and then you can collaboratively review the evidence with them.
I've actually done that with these students, though I'm the only faculty member with a background in EBT for trauma and so the other faculty tend to get confused as to why I get so passionate about it. heh.
 
Trauma isn’t a diagnosis. It’s an event. What happens afterwards is sometimes diagnosable.

We should make mid levels get this tattooed on themselves in their first practicums. That is how strongly I feel about this. Or at least do the bart simpson thing where they write it on the blackboard thousands of times.
 
Trauma isn’t a diagnosis. It’s an event. What happens afterwards is sometimes diagnosable.

Wth everything being "trauma informed" this and "trauma informed" that, it would seem that the loose definition of trauma is the be all end all these days in MH.
 
Wth everything being "trauma informed" this and "trauma informed" that, it would seem that the loose definition of trauma is the be all end all these days in MH.
1) I don't understand how anyone accepted the tenets of "trauma informed care". They openly state the idea is "spiritual", which is incompatible with science. Psychotherapy is based upon a balance of support AND challenging someone, which is incompatible with their tenet of always having "emotional safety". Behavioral and psychoanalytic principles are largely incompatible with "transparency" (e.g., "okay, I am going to verbally reward a more adaptive response, so start talking"). "Mutuality" demands we ignore the fact that this is not a friendship, and it is not mutual.

2) Breur abandoned the abreactive model before Freud was around, because catharsis doesn't work. Modern therapists seem unaware of this. Not that they are interested in getting someone better.
 
1) I don't understand how anyone accepted the tenets of "trauma informed care". They openly state the idea is "spiritual", which is incompatible with science. Psychotherapy is based upon a balance of support AND challenging someone, which is incompatible with their tenet of always having "emotional safety". Behavioral and psychoanalytic principles are largely incompatible with "transparency" (e.g., "okay, I am going to verbally reward a more adaptive response, so start talking"). "Mutuality" demands we ignore the fact that this is not a friendship, and it is not mutual.

2) Breur abandoned the abreactive model before Freud was around, because catharsis doesn't work. Modern therapists seem unaware of this. Not that they are interested in getting someone better.
I think that "trauma informed care" has been changed to mean something more like "care that takes into account the experiences of and possible physical and mental sequalae of trauma". For example, I've seen it used in early childhood work to mean something like "consider that some of your students with severe behavior issues may have experienced abuse, neglect, or other trauma, rather than jumping the conclusion that they are 'bad kids' or all have ASD." Likewise, I've seen it used in primary care medical settings to mean something like "If you have a patient who comes in evidence of physical injury and depressive symptoms, ask about intimate violence when the patient is alone with you." But I think its's largely become a buzzword where no one really knows what it means and just uses it vaguely as a catch-all.
 
I think that "trauma informed care" has been changed to mean something more like "care that takes into account the experiences of and possible physical and mental sequalae of trauma". For example, I've seen it used in early childhood work to mean something like "consider that some of your students with severe behavior issues may have experienced abuse, neglect, or other trauma, rather than jumping the conclusion that they are 'bad kids' or all have ASD." Likewise, I've seen it used in primary care medical settings to mean something like "If you have a patient who comes in evidence of physical injury and depressive symptoms, ask about intimate violence when the patient is alone with you." But I think its's largely become a buzzword where no one really knows what it means and just uses it vaguely as a catch-all.

Definitely, I get the original intent of the construct, but the bastardized version that abounds now fits right in to the notion that any and everything that is even mildly uncomfortable is a "trauma."
 
Top