Biofeedback: A possible substitute for smoking, experiment I.☆
References (17)
- et al.
The importance of methodology in drug studies using EEG
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
(1974) - et al.
Posters as smoking deterrents
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1972) - et al.
Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
(1968) EEG differences between smokers and nonsmokers
Opinion Index Report 3108
(June 1974)Factors related to successful abstinence from smoking: Final report
(1966)- et al.
Electroencephalographic changes related to smoking
Electroencephalograph Clinical Neurophysiology
(1958) - et al.
An evaluation of current methods of modifying smoking behavior
Journal of Clinical Psychology
(1974)
Cited by (11)
Advances in biofeedback and neurofeedback studies on smoking
2020, NeuroImage: ClinicalCitation Excerpt :The deactivation of smoking-elicited EEG patterns was targeted rewarding participants whose response to smoking stimuli converged to that of neutral stimuli. Griffith and Crossman (1983) mentioned that occipital alpha upregulation was provided as substitute for smoking without explaining the underlying rationale for choosing this protocol. In rtfMRI studies craving-related brain regions were reported, citing overlapping groups of studies, in order to form the concept of their designs.
Biofeedback Interventions for Impulsivity-related Processes in Addictive Disorders
2023, Current Addiction ReportsDoes combined training of biofeedback and neurofeedback affect smoking status, behavior, and longitudinal brain plasticity?
2023, Frontiers in Behavioral NeuroscienceThe effect of biofeedback on smoking cessation—a systematic short review
2022, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift
- ☆
This study was conducted with funds furnished by the Utah Lung Association and the use of the Exceptional Child Center Biofeedback equipment.
- ∗
The authors wish to thank Mark Schaefer, Ray Reitz, Fred Browning, and John Zukin for their assistance in the collecting of the data. We would also like to thank Dr. Sebastian Striefel, Dr. Marvin Fifield, Dr. Glenon Casto, Dr. Michael Bertoch, Dr. Richard Powers, and Dr. Glen Latham for their support and positive critique.