Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T17:48:05.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relationship of Technology Assessment and Utilization: Electromyographic Feedback Instrumentation as a Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Steven L. Wolf
Steven L. Wolf
Affiliation:
Emory University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biofeedback instrumentation has been a growing part of physical therapy practice for 20 years, and physical therapists have contributed to researching its efficacy in treating varying conditions. The application of biofeedback to the treatment of stroke was marked by some early difficulties with the quality of the electronics, but sophisticated contemporary equipment can do much more than was originally envisioned. The importance of relating quantified movement-based data to functional measures is projected as a high priority if appropriate reimbursement for physical therapy services with biofeedback is to continue in the future.

Information

Type
Special Section: Assessing The Technology Of Physical Therapy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 102 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Bach-y-Rita, P., & Balliet, R. Recovery from stroke. In Duncan, P. W. & Badke, M. (eds.), The recovery of motor control. New York: Year Book Publishers, 1987, 79–107.Google Scholar
2.Basmajian, J. V.Control and training of individual motor units. Science, 1963, 141, 440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Basmajian, J. V.Muscles alive: Their functions revealed by electromyography, 3rd ed.Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1974, 114–30.Google Scholar
4.Basmajian, J. V. (ed.). Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians, 3rd ed.Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1989.Google Scholar
5.Basmajian, J. V.Biofeedback for neuromuscular reeducation. Critical Reviews in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1989, 1, 37–58.Google Scholar
6.Brudny, J. Biofeedback in chronic neurologic cases: Therapeutic electromyography. In White, L. & Tursky, B. (eds.), Clinical biofeedback efficacy and mechanisms. New York: Guilford, 1982, 249–75.Google Scholar
7.Butler, F.Biofeedback: A survey of the literature. New York: Plenum, 1978.Google Scholar
8.Culler, S. D., & Van Veen Daigle, A. (eds.). The American health care system: 1984. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1984.Google Scholar
9.Fernando, C. K., & Basmajian, J. V.Biofeedback in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 1978, 4, 435–55.Google Scholar
10.Fields, R. W.Electromyographically triggered electric muscle stimulation for chronic hemiplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1978, 68, 407–14.Google Scholar
11.Mayhew, T. P., & Rothstein, J. M. Measurement of muscle performance with instruments. In Rothstein, J. M. (ed.), Measurements in physical therapy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985, 57–102.Google Scholar
12.Medicare Intermediary Manual: Part 3 — claims process chapter X, sec. 3904. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 07 1988, 10–53–10–68.Google Scholar
13.Mulder, T.The learning of motor control following brain damage: Experimental and clinical studies. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1985.Google Scholar
14.Regenos, E. M., & Wolf, S. L.Involuntary single motor unit discharges in spastic muscles during EMG biofeedback training. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1979, 60, 72–731.Google Scholar
15.Rothstein, J. M. (ed.). Measurement in physical therapy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985.Google Scholar
16.Schwartz, M. S.Biofeedback: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press, 1987.Google Scholar
17.Wiener, N.Cybernetics of the nervous system. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1965.Google Scholar
18.Wolf, S. L.Essential considerations in the use of EMG biofeedback. Physical Therapy, 1978, 58, 25–31.Google Scholar
19.Wolf, S. L.EMG biofeedback applications in physical medicine: An overview. Physiotherapy (Canada), 1979, 31, 65–72.Google Scholar
20.Wolf, S. L.Electromyographic biofeedback applications to stroke patients: A critical review. Physical Therapy, 1983, 63, 1448–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Wolf, S. L., & Binder-Macleod, S. A.Neurophysiological factors in electromyographic feedback for neuromotor disturbances. In Basmajian, J. V. (ed.), Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians, 3rd ed.Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1989, 17–36.Google Scholar
22.Wolf, S. L., Edwards, D. I., & Shutter, L. A.Concurrent assessment of muscle activity (CAMA): A procedural approach to assess treatment goals. Physical Therapy, 1986, 66, 218–24.Google Scholar
23.Wolf, S. L., & Fischer-Williams, M. The use of biofeedback in disorders of motor function. In Hatch, J. P., Fisher, J. G., & Rugh, J. D. (eds.), Biofeedback: Studies in clinical efficacy. New York: Plenum, 1978, 153–78.Google Scholar