Journal of Neurotherapy: Investigations in Neuromodulation, Neurofeedback and Applied Neuroscience Selected Abstracts of Conference Presentations at the 2010 International Society for Neurofeedback and Research (ISNR) 18th Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado Published online: 25 Nov 2010. To cite this article: (2010) Selected Abstracts of Conference Presentations at the 2010 International Society for Neurofeedback and Research (ISNR) 18th Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado, Journal of Neurotherapy: Investigations in Neuromodulation, Neurofeedback and Applied Neuroscience, 14:4, 321-371, DOI: 10.1080/10874208.2010.523353 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10874208.2010.523353 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE © International Society for Neurofeedback and Research (ISNR), all rights reserved. This article (the “Article”) may be accessed online from ISNR at no charge. The Article may be viewed online, stored in electronic or physical form, or archived for research, teaching, and private study purposes. The Article may be archived in public libraries or university libraries at the direction of said public library or university library. Any other reproduction of the Article for redistribution, sale, resale, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or other distribution, including both physical and electronic reproduction for such purposes, is expressly forbidden. Preparing or reproducing derivative works of this article is expressly forbidden. ISNR makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any content in the Article. From 1995 to 2013 the Journal of Neurotherapy was the official publication of ISNR (www. Isnr.org); on April 27, 2016 ISNR acquired the journal from Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. In 2014, ISNR established its official open-access journal NeuroRegulation (ISSN: 2373-0587; www.neuroregulation.org). THIS OPEN-ACCESS CONTENT MADE POSSIBLE BY THESE GENEROUS SPONSORS Journal of Neurotherapy, 14:321–371, 2010 Copyright © 2010 ISNR. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1087-4208 print=1530-017X online DOI: 10.1080/10874208.2010.523353 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2010 ISNR CONFERENCE Selected Abstracts of Conference Presentations at the 2010 International Society for Neurofeedback and Research (ISNR) 18th Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado ORAL PRESENTATIONS to test the hypothesis of gamma band abnor- malities at early stages of visual processing in Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Mag- ASD by investigating relative evoked (i.e., netic Stimulation (rTMS) Modulates Evoked- 100 ms) gamma power in a visual oddball Gamma Frequency Oscillations in Autism task using Kanizsa illusory figures. Our results Spectrum Disorder (ASD) indicate that in individuals with ASD-evoked gamma activity is not discriminative of stimu- Joshua M. Baruth, MS lus type, whereas in controls early gamma University of Louisville School of Medicine power differences between target and nontar- <[email protected]> get stimuli are highly significant. Following 12 sessions of bilateral ‘‘slow’’ rTMS treatment It has been reported that individuals with to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex indivi- Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have duals with ASD showed significant improve- abnormal reactions to the sensory environ- ment in discriminatory gamma activity ment and visuo-perceptual abnormalities. between relevant and irrelevant visual stimuli Electrophysiological research has provided with few, if any, side effects reported. We evidence that gamma band activity (30– propose that slow rTMS may have increased 80 Hz) is a physiological indicator of the cortical inhibitory tone and decreased the ratio coactivation of cortical cells engaged in pro- of cortical excitation to inhibition, which cessing visual stimuli and integrating differ- improved discriminatory gamma activity at ent features of a stimulus. A number of early stages of visual processing. We also studies have found augmented and indis- found significant improvement in behavioral criminative gamma band power at both early questionnaires (i.e., irritability, repetitive beha- (i.e., evoked gamma) and late (i.e., induced vior) as a result of rTMS. Contrary to avail- gamma) stages of visual processing in ASD; able pharmacological interventions, rTMS this may be related to decreased inhibitory has shown significant benefits in treating core processing and an increase in the ratio of cor- symptoms of ASD with few, if any, side effects. tical excitation to inhibition. Low frequency or ‘‘slow’’ (¼1 Hz) repetitive transcranial REFERENCES magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to increase inhibition of stimulated cortex by Boroojerdi, B., Prager, A., Muellbacher, W., Cohen, the activation of inhibitory circuits. We wanted L. G. (2000). Reduction of human visual cortex 322 JOURNAL OF NEUROTHERAPY excitability using 1-Hz transcranial magnetic stimu- and executive function tasks, and parents and lation. Neurology, 54, 1529–1531. teachers filled out behavior questionnaires Brown, C., Gruber, T., Boucher, J., Rippon, G., & Brock, again. Data collection ends in July 2010. J. (2005). Gamma abnormalities during perception of We hope that the results of this study can illusory figures in autism. Cortex, 41, 364–376. be presented for the first time at the ISNR Charman, T. (2008). Autism spectrum disorders. Psychiatry, 7, 331–334. conference in Denver. Grice, S. J., Spratling, M. W., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Halit, H., Csibra, G., De Haan, M., et al. (2001). Disordered visual processing and oscillatory brain REFERENCES activity in autism and Williams syndrome. NeuroReport, 12, 2697–2700. Kouijzer, M. E. J., De Moor, J. M. H., Gerrits, B. J. Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Tran- L., Buitelaar, J. K., & Van Schie, H. T. (2009). scranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience– Long-term effects of neurofeedback treatment in virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connec- autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, tivity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 10, 232–237. 496–501. Tallon-Baudry, C., Bertrand, O., Delpuech, C., & Kouijzer, M. E. J., De Moor, J. M. H., Gerrits, B. J. Pernier, J. (1996). Stimulus specificity of phase- L., Congedo, M., & Van Schie, H. T. (2009). Neu- locked and non-phase-locked 40 Hz visual responses rofeedback improves executive functioning in chil- in human. Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 4240–4249. dren with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 145–162. Kouijzer, M. E. J., Van Schie, H. T., De Moor, J. M. The Effects of Neurofeedback in Children H., Gerrits, B. J. L., & Buitelaar, J. K. (in press). with Autism: Results of a Randomized Single Neurofeedback treatment in autism. Preliminary Blind Attention Placebo-Controlled Study findings in behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysio- logical functioning. Research in Autism Spectrum Mirjam Kouijzer, MSc Disorders. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016= Radboud University Nijmegen j.rasd.2009.10.007 <[email protected]> EEG Connectivity Assessment and Training: While writing this conference abstract in A Multichannel Directed Information Flow March 2010, a study investigating the effects Perspective of neurofeedback in autism is running in the Netherlands. After accomplishing two smal- David Joffe, BA ler studies with promising results (Kouijzer, EEG Dynamics de Moor, Gerrits, Congedo, & van Schie, <[email protected]> 2009; Kouijzer, van Schie, de Moor, Gerrits, & Buitelaar, in press), we now try to prevent Classical coherence analysis methods pro- our results from attention and expectancy vide insufficient information to explicitly biases. In addition to the EEG feedback characterize the direction of information group and the waiting list control group, we flow between two or more EEG scalp elec- included a Skin Conductance (SC) feedback trode locations, as a function of frequency. group. All participants of the present study In addition, it is impossible to determine (n ¼ 41) were pretested with EEG and execu- the extent to which the coherence measured tive function tasks and parents and teachers between any two particular scalp electrode filled out behavior questionnaires. Then, the sites may be due to the influence of one or EEG and SC feedback groups had identical more additional scalp electrode sites, using sessions of EEG or SC feedback without coherence analysis alone. Additional knowl- knowing which type of feedback they edge in both of these areas may improve a received. EEG and SC feedback sessions were neurotherapist’s ability to assess QEEG identical with electrodes attached to the scalp dynamics more completely, and also improve (measuring EEG) and to the fingers (measur- the efficacy of treatment. ing SC). After 40 sessions of EEG or SC feed- One class of methods that may be back, all participants were retested with EEG employed to address both of these concerns Proceedings of the 2010 ISNR Conference 323 in the context of multichannel QEEG assess- designs from the literature in order to illus- ment and neurofeedback training, involves trate their use and value as an approach to what are known as multivariate autoregres- testing the causal relations between treat- sive (MVAR) estimators. However, direct ment and outcomes. measures of EEG information flow direction and influence based on MVAR methods are Alcohol Addiction: A Clinical Pathophysiolo- not currently utilized in either QEEG assess- gical Approach ment or neurofeedback due to the lack of available turnkey research and=or clinical Dirk De Ridder, MD, PhD tools, as well as a