Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofeedback in its scientific format is a truly revolutionary development in the clinical sciences, and yet it strives to maintain its artistic background.How did we get here, and where are we going? A number of great thinkers contributed to the development of biofeedback in the past 100 years. They were helped along by the generally silent partners of technical development; mechanical, electrical, and electronic equipment; and other clinical technology.I once spoke with Dr. John Basmajian, the great pioneer of surface electromyography (SEMG) biofeedback at a conference. We were talking about a colleague's interests, and he laughed and said: “He is a poet.” We need more poets!Compared to other scientific fields, biofeedback pursues different streams related to different somatic components. At the same time, one can foresee when it will endeavor to develop hybrid fields such as muscle and neuro. Not long before I went to college in Montreal in 1965, the idea that the brain was “a black box” with no elasticity was still prevalent. We have evolved far in the past 50 years with the concept of neuroplasticity.When I first joined AAPB in the 1980s, the main interests of the meeting attendees were SEMG and neurofeedback. All the other fields were rather minor compared to these two.In the intervening years, most other fields have developed and taken over to a large extent. At present there is a great interest in heart rate variability (HRV) and mindfulness. The evolution continues and I'm fascinated to see what it will bring in the next few years. I predict hybrid developments with at least two somatic components involved.The authors in this issue of Biofeedback present a variety of scientific and clinical developments.Mari Swingle presents a masterful article in her field of neurofeedback. She truly has treaded along in this field for a respectable number of years. Many years ago, at an AAPB conference, Stu Donaldson introduced a young Mari Swingle to me and told me: “Watch her: She will become someone in this field!” It is due to her and other hard-working clinicians that the field of neurofeedback evolves and has a bright future.Jane Kaufman and her colleagues, Kathryn Stanton and Tiffany Ellsworth Lee, are occupational therapists and work in the field of pelvic floor biofeedback in treating incontinence. As the population ages, the number of people with incontinence increases, and SEMG biofeedback proves to be of great therapeutic value now, and it will be in the future. The article is a useful overview of the field as well as a very practical approach in the therapeutic value of this biofeedback technique.The field of ergonomics in sports performance is discussed by Drs. Filho, Aroni, Bagni, and Ellis. Golf is a highly relevant sport in our society. Putting requires serious attention on the part of the player. The authors present the fact that serious players are preparing themselves beforehand in terms of respiratory and heart rate control; however, the galvanic skin response (GSR) lags behind in terms of autonomic control. Biofeedback is probably an enhanced modality for teaching such control. This field awaits further development and attention.This issue of Biofeedback is dedicated to two old friends whose passing leaves a large empty space in my heart: Michael Thompson and Stu Donaldson. The two were stalwarts of the biofeedback community and will be missed.Their wives, Lynda and Mary, wrote a short script about the two great men. The scripts are included in this special issue.Someday, when one of us is chosen to write real biographies about the historic pillars of AAPB, we will learn and understand more fully the value of these pathfinders. They should smile on us and especially on the young generation, for biofeedback is alive, well, and has great contributors now and in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".