Edit: This was in response to sarahsweets question about evidence!

I think so, personally. But I didn't keep an index of everything that I read when I was researching it.

- Not "research", but if you read the Seburn Fisher book (Neurofeedback in the Treatment of Developmental Trauma: Calming the Fear-Driven Brain: 9780393707861: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com) - she talks about her experiences treating people with development trauma.

She's been doing this for awhile now (I'm guessing at least 20 years?) and has worked not just in private practice, but with badly traumatized kids in group homes/treatment centers. She talks about how neurofeedback is able to basically help people rewire their brain, whereas in her years of doing just therapy, she hasn't seen that happen.

So for complex trauma, she talks about how with a lot of therapy, you might get to a point where you can recognize your triggers and know how to cope when triggered. You won't act as "reactively" - but you still react. You still get scared, and have to use coping tools. With neurofeedback (over enough time, it can take a year or more, I think, for complex stuff) - she says that she sees people actually "cured" in the sense that they don't react. The triggers disappear. That's really mind-blowing to me!

- There's apparently a ton of research re: neurofeedback and ADD. The guy that I'm working with casually mentioned that ADD is one of the few things that the FDA (I think?) has approved neurofeedback to diagnose, because there are clear indicators in the QEEG that reliably show ADD. These do a *better* job than trying to assess someone's behavior (from a talk that I hear from someone else). I believe neurofeedback can be used to treat ADD too, but I didn't read as much about that, since that wasn't the issue that I was interested in.

- Another person that I've read has talked about how there are complaints that there aren't enough "double blind" studies of neurofeedback. The problem is, it's really hard to do that right now. Double blind means that both the doctor and the patient do NOT know if they're receiving the actual treatment or a placebo (so the doctor is given pills to give to the patient, but doesn't know if they are the real pills or sugar pills. This way, the doctor can't unconsciously give any subtle cues that might let the patient know what they're getting and influence their reactions).

That's really hard to do with neurofeedback, apparently. It's hard to have someone know that they're giving "fake" neurofeedback.

BUT - the point that this guy was making was that there are other studies of neurofeedback where practitioner is able to make symptoms disappear, bring them back, then remove them again. Which shows that the NF *IS* doing what it's supposed to.

- The last bit that I remember clearly, and found fascinating, is that NF was really developed in the 60s. The guy who worked on this was working with cats - trying to see whether he could train them to produce a particular frequency of brainwaves (and he did). Then, he got a contract with NASA to work on a solution for astronauts who were having seizures from the rocket fuel fumes.

He started his NASA work by taking a bunch of his cats, and exposing them to rocket fuel, to see at what levels seizures developed. Some of the cats didn't get seizures though... no matter how much rocket fuel he exposed them to. You can imagine his confusion, until he figured out - the cats that weren't having seizures were the same ones that he had trained to produce that particular brainwave.

So not only did they make more of the brainwave, they continued to do so after training was completed, and it had a clear protective effect from rocket-fuel-induced seizures. (In a way, this was double blind - the cats clearly didn't know what was going on, and he had forgotten about the previous study, so wasn't trying to test its effects).

That's all great, but even better - he had an assistant who suffered from bad seizures. She was unable to drive, took strong medications, and was scheduled for brain surgery to try to fix the problem (which didn't have a super high chance of success).

After seeing the cats, she asked him to let her try the neurofeedback. So he set her up, and she did it... and... the seizures stopped. She didn't go through with the surgery, she was able to stop the medication, and she was able to drive again.

So... that's really anecdotal, not at all a scientific study. But, it's powerful.

I believe there's more actual "research" out there, but I haven't dug in or organized it. I basically read enough to decide it worth trying. I have a long history of terrible therapy experiences (therapy has usually made me much worse, and has *never* really been helpful/good for me). I'm pretty miserable, and feel like I've wasted most of my life (I'm in my mid-40s) dealing with this stuff. Neurofeedback seems to have very few "risks" associated with it - it's based on teaching your brain to operate a little differently. It doesn't "stick" with just one session, so if you do have a bad reaction to a particular protocol, you just try something else next time.

The downsides are that it can be time-consuming and expensive.

I find it insane that, given the low risks and possibility of "curing" something (versus just treating symptoms with medication) that it's not more well known and used. I think that there are probably politics involved (for example, it wouldn't surprise me if drug companies were against it, because people often are able to stop taking medication when they do neurofeedback) - which just sucks. From an insurance perspective, it's also probably more "difficult" to administer (if you see someone in person, you have to go at least 2x/week, and you might need 40-60+ sessions) versus giving you a pill and sending you home.

So, that's my (long-winded) take on it. Hope that's helpful! If you're interested, you should definitely poke around more online and see what you can find.