↓ Skip to main content

Neurofeedback Training for Psychiatric Disorders Associated with Criminal Offending: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurofeedback Training for Psychiatric Disorders Associated with Criminal Offending: A Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Fielenbach, Franc C. L. Donkers, Marinus Spreen, Harmke A. Visser, Stefan Bogaerts

Abstract

Effective treatment interventions for criminal offenders are necessary to reduce risk of criminal recidivism. Evidence about deviant electroencephalographic (EEG)-frequencies underlying disorders found in criminal offenders is accumulating. Yet, treatment modalities, such as neurofeedback, are rarely applied in the forensic psychiatric domain. Since offenders usually have multiple disorders, difficulties adhering to long-term treatment modalities, and are highly vulnerable for psychiatric decompensation, more information about neurofeedback training protocols, number of sessions, and expected symptom reduction is necessary before it can be successfully used in offender populations. Studies were analyzed that used neurofeedback in adult criminal offenders, and in disorders these patients present with. Specifically aggression, violence, recidivism, offending, psychopathy, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), substance-use disorder (SUD), and cluster B personality disorders were included. Only studies that reported changes in EEG-frequencies posttreatment (increase/decrease/no change in EEG amplitude/power) were included. Databases Psychinfo and Pubmed were searched in the period 1990-2017 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, resulting in a total of 10 studies. Studies in which neurofeedback was applied in ADHD (N = 3), SUD (N = 3), schizophrenia (N = 3), and psychopathy (N = 1) could be identified. No studies could be identified for neurofeedback applied in cluster B personality disorders, aggression, violence, or recidivism in criminal offenders. For all treatment populations and neurofeedback protocols, number of sessions varied greatly. Changes in behavioral levels ranged from no improvements to significant symptom reduction after neurofeedback training. The results are also mixed concerning posttreatment changes in targeted EEG-frequency bands. Only three studies established criteria for EEG-learning. Implications of the results for the applicability of neurofeedback training in criminal offender populations are discussed. More research focusing on neurofeedback and learning of cortical activity regulation is needed in populations with externalizing behaviors associated with violence and criminal behavior, as well as multiple comorbidities. At this point, it is unclear whether standard neurofeedback training protocols can be applied in offender populations, or whether QEEG-guided neurofeedback is a better choice. Given the special context in which the studies are executed, clinical trials, as well as single-case experimental designs, might be more feasible than large double-blind randomized controls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 33%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 47 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,304,537
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,724
of 10,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,473
of 441,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#60
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.