ABSTRACT
Research conducted by Kouijzer et al. (Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 38(1):17-28, 2013) compared the effects of skin conductance biofeedback and EEG-biofeedback on patients with autistic spectrum disorders to determine their relative efficacy. While they found a difference between treatment and control groups, there was no significant difference on many variables between the two treatment groups. From this, the increase in symptom alleviation from autistic spectrum disorder was attributed to non-specific factors surrounding the study. We now offer alternative explanations for their findings and propose different options for future studies. We hypothesize that the location and type of neurofeedback used adversely impacted the findings. We speculate that had they used a form of EEG-biofeedback that can combat deficiencies in connectivity and also trained the areas of the brain most affected by autism, there may have then been a significant difference between the effectiveness of EEG-biofeedback versus skin conductance biofeedback.
