Brain Mapping May Offer Promise in Treating Mental Health and Neurological Conditions

With a treatment known as brain mapping, practitioners say they can treat conditions like ADHD, depressive disorders, epilepsy, autism and more. In a fast-growing industry, brain mapping or neurofeedback is based on the idea that targeted brain exercises can rewire the brain to decrease the challenges presented by a broad range of mental impairments.

Here’s how it works.  In a therapy session, a doctor or therapist places electrodes on a patient’s skull. The electrodes measure, but do not stimulate, brain activity. A computer analyzes the brain activity and feeds it back to the patient as images on a computer screen or sounds through headphones. The computer and the health worker then guide and encourage the patient toward healthy patterns of brain activity. For example, a patient coping with panic attacks can reduce their anxiety by thinking calmer thoughts. In theory, just as we learn to do any activity by doing it over and over, our brains can learn and change. Many patients and their families find neurofeedback a preferable alternative to drug treatments, especially for children with ADHD.

Neurofeedback has become a $2 billion industry that has blossomed in recent years by marketing directly to consumers. The personalized programs can cost families $12,000 or more for six months of training. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a wide range of neurofeedback devices to treat a lengthy list of conditions, although there are only a few studies on the benefits of brain mapping and the results have been inconclusive.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists neurofeedback as an option in cases of ADHD in children, though they stop short of endorsing it.

There are abundant anecdotal endorsements for brain mapping. However, according to a research paper published by the U.S. government’s National Library of Medicine “double-blind, placebo-controlled trials—often considered the ‘gold standard’ of research—have yielded mixed results regarding the specific effectiveness of neurofeedback (NFB). While many participants in these studies show improvement, high-quality, sham-controlled trials frequently find that active neurofeedback is no more effective than placebo (sham) feedback, suggesting the benefits may be due to non-specific factors (e.g., caring attention from a therapist, placebo effect, time spent on task) rather than the training itself.”

Reporting for the New York Times, David Dodge points out “while its effectiveness is still debated, neurofeedback is generally thought to be safe. Even critics admit there are few side effects or downsides for those who have the time and money.”