 |
 |
Anxiety Change Through Electroencephalographic Alpha Feedback
Seen Only in High Anxiety Subjects
James V. Hardt and Joe Kamiya
Science, Vol. 201, pp. 79-81, 7 July 1978
Abstract
Subjects who were either high or low in trait
anxiety used alpha feedback to increase and to decrease their
electroencephalographic alpha activity. The alpha changes were tightly linked
to anxiety changes, but only in high anxiety subjects (for whom anxiety was
reduced in proportion to alpha increases, and was increased in proportion to
alpha suppression). Low trait-anxiety subjects were superior at both
enhancement and suppression training, but their alpha changes were not related
to anxiety changes. In both groups, anxiety changes were generally unrelated
to either resting levels or changes in frontalis electromyograms and
respiration rate. These results suggest that long-term alpha feedback training
(at least 5 hours) may be useful in anxiety therapy.
Discussion
Recently, Orne and Paskewitz (1) reported "a lack of
the expected relationship between alpha density and the apprehension, anxiety,
fear, or arousal level of the subjects" (1, p. 460). This paradoxical
outcome, counter to 35 years of electroencephalographic (EEG) research
(2), was interpreted to cast doubt on the "expected" inverse alpha
anxiety relationship, and to "challenge the widely accepted rationale for using
alpha feedback training as a means of teaching individuals control ... of
anxiety."
However, several methodological problems and unproved
assumptions weaken their challenge to the use of learned alpha increases for
anxiety. Ome and Paskewitz (1) did not select high anxiety subjects; in
fact they probably eliminated them by excluding subjects with low alpha levels
and subjects afraid of electric shock. Instead, they sought to increase
anxiety (by threat of electric shock) and then to measure alpha changes.
Anxiety levels were never directly measured and no attempt was made to measure
alpha changes accompanying reduced anxiety. Orne and Paskewitz reasoned
backward from their anxiety manipulations to conclusions about possible effects
of alpha manipulations (that is, through feedback). Their reasoning assumed a
symmetric relation between alpha activity and anxiety. However, nonsymmetric
relations are common. Thus (absent symmetry) shock-induced increases in
anxiety could fail to affect alpha as reported (1) and yet
feedback-induced alpha increases could still effect anxiety reductions.
The problem in anxiety therapy is to reduce, not increase,
anxiety, so we trained both high and low trait-anxiety people to control the
amount of alpha activity (8 to 13 Hz) in their brain waves. Occurrence of EEG
alpha activity sounded a tone whose loudness was proportional to the
instantaneous alpha voltage. Volunteers for alpha feedback training (100
college males) were paid $1.50 to take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI). Selection of the eight subjects with the highest trait
anxiety, and eight subjects with the lowest trait anxiety was based on the
MMPI's Welsh A (anxiety) scale and the MMPI's three validity scales
(3). The resultant high and low trait-anxiety groups had average Welsh
A anxiety scores (27.4 and 4.3, respectively) which differed reliably
(P < .05 considered reliable). The full MMPI was given two more
times. After one day on which alpha baseline data (no feedback) were obtained,
subjects took MMPI No. 2 and then trained for seven consecutive days on alpha
feedback, after which MMPI No. 3 was given. Subjects were paid $2.50 per day.
Table 1
Correlation of trait-anxiety change with
physiological changes during alpha enhancement feedback. Physiological changes
were summed across days 4 to 7 to derive the net physiological changes.
|
|
Physiological Measure
|
Correlation in low anxiety subjects
(N = 8)
|
Correlation in high anxiety subjects
(N = 8)
|
|
sum Oz alpha
|
.291
|
-.767 (P < .025)
| |
per cent O1, alpha
|
.242
|
-.933 (P < .001)
| |
sum O1, alpha
|
.175
|
-.697 (P < .05)
| |
per cent C3 alpha
|
.247
|
-.581
| |
sum C3 alpha
|
.413
|
-.672 (P < .05)
| |
Respiration rate
|
-.145
|
-.319
| |
sum Frontalis EMG
|
.385
|
-.558
|
Each day we recorded from each subject (i) mood scales,
(ii) an 8-minute resting baseline, (iii) 32 minutes of alpha enhancement
feedback, (iv) mood scales, (v) an 8-minute resting baseline, (vi) 16 minutes
of alpha suppression feedback, and (vii) mood scales. Subjects sat erect, eyes
closed, in total darkness for all recording. Mood scales included the "state"
form of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) to measure changes in
state anxiety during feedback. State anxiety is a short-term feeling of the
moment. Trait anxiety refers to a longer-term personality disposition. The
MAACL measure of state anxiety correlates significantly with other anxiety
measures: clinical, situational, physiological, and biochemical (4).
Alpha activity was measured at three sites: Oz (midline occipital),
O1 (left occipital), and C3 (left central) (linked ears
were used for reference). Integrated amplitude (sum) scores were derived from
all three sites, and percentage time scores (10 micro-volt threshold) were
derived from O1 and C3. The percentage scores are
questionable statistically (5), but are included for comparisons
(1). Feedback was a tone (loudness proportional to Oz alpha
amplitude) and a digital score representing summed Oz alpha,
presented at 2-minute intervals. Frontalis muscle tension was also scored
[integrated electromyogram (EMG)], and abdominal respiration was recorded.
To test the data as a single dependent variable representing
the alpha/anxiety relation, we paired each individual's daily alpha changes
(during enhancement or suppression) with his resultant state-anxiety changes.
These paired values were then correlated across subjects (separately in each
trait-anxiety group). Significant negative correlations would confirm an
inverse alpha / anxiety relation. To test for this, Bartlett's (6)
method was used: alpha / state-anxiety correlations from each of the 7 days of
feedback were z-transformed and tested across days with analysis of
variance (ANOVA). State-anxiety changes were related to EMG and respiration
rate changes the same way. Trait-anxiety changes were also treated separately
in each group, being correlated with cumulative (net) alpha changes during
enhancement or suppression. Net alpha change across days best indexes amount
of exposure to anxiety-altering states. Trait-anxiety change was the Welsh A
difference between MMPI Nos. I and 3 (given before and after the seven
feedback sessions). Net alpha change (7-10) was the sum of daily alpha changes
(feedback minus prior baseline). Net EMG and respiration rate changes were
determined similarly.
Figure 1
The correlation (z-transformed) between
alpha change and state-anxiety change as a function of training time and
cortical site. The correlations were derived from state-anxiety changes of
eight high anxiety subjects during alpha enhancement, and from the integrated
amplitude alpha scores of these subjects at three cortical sites: 0z
((D), 01 (F--l), and C3 (A). After each of the
four indicated days (4, 5, 6, and 7) the total accumulated feedback training
time (in minutes) was 176, 224, 272, and 320. Linear regressions of z
scores on days were significant at two of the three cortical sites. The
coefficient of determination (rl) was .791, .896, and .987 for,
respectively, sum Oz, sum O1, and sum C3 alpha
scores. Thus, as training progressed, alpha enhancement became more reliably
associated with state anxiety reductions.
|
Alpha enhancement reliably reduced state anxiety in the
high trait-anxiety group. The inverse relation (seen with all five alpha
measures) was significant with both f and percentage measures of C, alpha. The
inverse relation was "complete" in that alpha suppression increased state
anxiety. This effect (seen with all five alpha measures) was significant with
all measures of occipital alpha: sum Oz, sum O1,
percentage O1. The negative relation linking alpha increases to
reduced state anxiety became stronger as high trait-anxiety subjects trained
beyond 2 hours (see Fig. 1). Despite the full range of effects in the high
trait-anxiety subjects, low trait-anxiety subjects showed no significant
alpha/state-anxiety effects.
Alpha enhancement also reduced the (supposedly stable)
Welsh A trait anxiety measure. The key finding (see Table 1) was that
net alpha increase (7) was related to trait-anxiety decrease only in high
trait-anxiety subjects. Reductions in trait anxiety were large enough to be
useful in anxiety therapy. The two best alpha enhancers in the high anxiety
group reduced their Welsh A scores from 35 and 24 (before feedback) to
18 and 7, respectively (after feedback). This left both below average in
anxiety. These trait-anxiety changes followed substantial net increases in
alpha activity, relative to baselines (see Table 2). Net alpha suppression had
no significant effect on trait anxiety for either anxiety group, perhaps
because daily suppression practice lasted only half as Jong as enhancement (16
as opposed to 32 minutes). No respiration effects were seen and the only EMG
effect was in low trait anxiety subjects who showed a direct relation between
EMG and state anxiety during the alpha suppression task.
Relating trait-anxiety change to net alpha change for each
individual insulated these results against regression to the mean; nevertheless
corrections for such regression were made (11-14). Results remained
significant. Even reanalysis with another MMPI anxiety scale (Taylor Manifest
Anxiety) gave confirmation: alpha increases led to trait-anxiety reductions in
high (but not low) trait-anxiety subjects. Several other results may aid
interpretation. Low trait-anxiety subjects enhanced and suppressed alpha
better than high trait-anxiety subjects, as shown previously (15).
Daily alpha baselines were stable across days, and low anxiety subjects tended
to have higher baselines at C3. However these baseline differences
did not reach significance [F(6, 84) = 2.02, P < .08, and
F(6, 84) = 1.41, P < .25, for percentage and sum measures,
respectively]. The measurement equipment was both sensitive and accurate,
being capable of resolving differences of half a microvolt sustained over 2
minutes. Variances with a 10-Hz, 50-microV input were less than 1 percent of
the means.
Table 2
Alpha enhancement indices for the two best high
anxiety subjects (R.L. and G.W.). The large percentage increases in percentage
time scores occur when subjects start near the threshold (here 10 gV). An
increase from 5 to 50 percent time alpha is a 1000 percent increase. Increases
for R.L. and G.W. were averaged together across the last 4 days of training
(days 4 to 7).
|
|
Average Physiological Measure
|
Daily peak enhancement
(percentage above average baseline) 1
|
Alpha score
(percentage above daily baseline) 2
|
|
sum Oz
|
18
|
95
| |
percent Oz
|
40
|
192
| |
sum O1
|
21
|
98
| |
percent O1
|
128
|
1000
| |
sum C3
|
16
|
49
|
Table note 1: These represent alpha increases
sustained for more than 2 hours (4 days of training at 32 minutes of
enhancement per day, or 128 minutes).
Table note 2: daily peak enhancement scores for the
highest 2-minute scoring interval were compared with average daily baselines,
and the percentage increases were averaged across days 4 to 7.
Stability of these alpha/anxiety findings across a variety
of methods of representing changes (11, 16) affirms the classical
inverse alpha/anxiety relation, but only in high trait-anxiety subjects, for
whom the classical relation is "cornplete." Alpha increases result in
state-anxiety decreases, while alpha decreases result in state-anxiety
increases. This "completeness" implies that anxiety decreases during
enhancement do not result from feelings of success, since success at
suppression yields anxiety increases. Our data nowhere suggest factors other
than alpha changes producing the anxiety changes. Permanence of anxiety
changes requires assessment. Preliminary evidence (17) suggests poor
enhancement in high anxiety subjects is associated with rapid baseline
respiration. Prior training in slow breathing may facilitate alpha enhancement
and anxiety reduction in such persons.
Absence of alpha/anxiety effects in low trait-anxiety
subjects explains why Ome and Paskewitz (1) observed no inverse
alpha/anxiety relation: they eliminated 60 percent of their original subjects
in two successive screenings, leaving a possibly low trait-anxiety group.
Subjects showing alpha activity less than 25 percent of the time were excluded
first. Such subjects are often high in trait anxiety (2). Remaining
subjects were asked to volunteer for "painful" electric shock. Over half
withdrew. The ten remaining volunteers were probably low in trait anxiety
(18), and gave Ome and Paskewitz negative results which agree perfectly
with our results for low anxiety subjects. But, in addition, we report
positive results in high trait-anxiety subjects. The relation between alpha
enhancement and reduced state anxiety was seen centrally at C3,
while alpha suppression at occipital sites (Oz, O1) was
related to anxiety increases. This difference indicates a complex relation
between alpha location and state-anxiety changes. It may explain disagreements
between studies, and suggests existence of a best feedback site for
reducing state anxiety. However, alpha increases at all three sites were
related to reduction of trait anxiety (Table 1), whereas EMG's were unrelated
to changes in either state or trait anxiety (in high trait-anxiety subjects).
Thus alpha feedback may be a more effective treatment for high anxiety than EMG
feedback.
Malmo's (19) description of an inverted U-shaped
relation between alpha and arousal correctly predicts the signs of the
alpha/anxiety relation for high and low anxiety subjects if, like Ome and
Paskewitz, we equate anxiety and arousal (see Table 1). Low-arousal people
must become more aroused to increase alpha, while over-aroused people must
learn reduced arousal. This learning takes time and data obtained during the
first 2 hours are best discarded. Our results suggest the possibility that
alpha feedback can be used therapeutically, but to obtain therapeutic effects
more extended training should be given than that reported in most studies.
JAMES V. HARDT
JOE KAMIYA
Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, San
Francisco 94143
References and Notes
1. M. T. Ome and D. A. Paskewitz, Science
186, 458 (1974).
2. H. Berger, Arch. Psychiatr. Nervenkr.
87, 527 (1929); J. Psychol. Neurol. 40, 160 (1930);
A. C. Williams, J. Exp. Psychol. 26, 413 (1940); M. A. Kennard
and M. D. Willner, Dis. Nerv. Syst. 6, 337 (1945);
R. G. Stennett, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 9, 131
(1957); L. D. Costa, M. Cox, R. Katzman, J. Consult. Psychol.
29, 90 (1965).
3. A staff clinical psychologist (M. O'Sullivan, personal
communication) recommended the use of only subjects with validity scales in the
following ranges: L < 9, F < 17, K < 23. These
restrictions eliminated subjects who were faking or dishonest and helped assure
validity of anxiety measures.
4. M. Zuckerman and B. Lubin, Manual for the Multiple
Affect Adjective Check List (Educational and Industrial Testing Service,
San Diego, 1965).
5. J. V. Hardt and J. Kamiya, Biofeedback Self Reg.
1, 63 (1976).
6. M. S. Bartlett, Biometrics 3, 39 (1947).
7. Only the last 4 days were used to compute the
enhancement sum because alpha enhancement learning has early and late phases
(8); enhancement control is not well established during the first 2
hours (9). We thought that learning must be established before one can
see effects related to learning. Net suppression was computed similarly;
however, all 7 days of training were used to compute the sum, because
suppression is learned very quickly (10), so effects related to learning
can be sought from session 1 on.
8. J. V. Hardt, Diss. Abstr. Int. B. 35
(No. 2) 1912 (1974); Proc. Biofeedback Res. Soc. 6, 118 (1975).
9. ____ and J. Kamiya, Proc. Biofeedback Res. Soc.
7, 30 (1976).
10. D. A. Paskewitz and M. T. Orne, Science
181, 360 (1973).
11. The analysis of alpha activity and trait anxiety was
repeated with the use of Lacey's ALS scores (12), instead of change
scores, to index changes in trait anxiety. ALS scores [equivalent to Manning
and DuBois' (13) residual gain scores] are more valid and reliable than
change scores when there is regression to the mean (14). ALS scores
were computed with the use of the postfeedback Welsh A score and the
average of the two previously obtained measures of Welsh A. ALS scores
were correlated with net alpha change scores of high A subjects.
Results were unaltered except for sum C3 scores which dropped below
significance. The inverse alpha/trait-anxiety relation remained significant
for all three measures of occipital alpha.
12. J. 1. Lacey, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 67,
123 (1956).
13. W. H. Manning and P. H. DuBois,
Percept. Mot. Skills 15, 287 (1962).
14. A. Lubin, D. J. Hord, L. C. Johnson, U.S. Navy
Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit Rept. 64-20 (San Diego, Calif.,
1964).
15. J. V. Hardt, Proc. Biofeedback Res. Soc.
6, 72 (1975); P. W. Utz and P. G. Banikiotes, American Psychological
Assoc. Proc. 10, 549 (1973); R. S. Valle, R. C. Chisholm,
D. DeGood, Proc. Biofeedback Res. Soc. 6, 38 (1975).
16. The entire alpha/state-anxiety relation was
recomputed with the scores for percentage change [(final - initial)/initial]
instead of simple change scores; the results remained essentially the same when
alpha percentage change scores were correlated with both simple and percentage
change scores for state anxiety.
17. J. V. Hardt and J. Kamiya, Proc. Soc.
Psychophysiol. Res. (Society for Psychophysiological Research, San Diego,
1976).
18. P. M. Lehrer, Behav. Res. Ther. 3, 193
(1972).
19. R. B. Malmo, Psychol. Rev. 66, 367
(1959).
20. This work was supported in part by National Institute
of Mental Health (NIMH) predoctoral fellowship 1 F01 MH51704-01; NIMH general
research support grant LPNI 185; a Langley Porter postdoctoral fellowship (ITP
Program, NIMH 7082) to J.V.H.; NIMH research scientist development award 2KO2
MH38897; NIMH research grant IR01 MH24820, Office of Naval Research contract
N00014-70-C-0350, and INR Funds, Computer Center Accounts (UCSF) 1431 and 1437
to J.K.
26 August 1977; revised 4 October 1977
0036-8075/78/0707-0079$00.50/0
|
 |
|
|
 |