A signal.
A question.
A century of discovery.

Kamiya's own historical account describes the progression from studying sleep and dreams to experiments in alpha discrimination and control. Learning to alter a signal and demonstrating a clinical benefit are separate research questions.

Sterman and L. Friar's 1972 human report became an important early clinical milestone. Its single-person design belongs to the history of the research, rather than serving as a general estimate of treatment effectiveness.

The report was preliminary and involved one child. Historical hyperkinesis terminology should not be equated with current ADHD definitions.

Her later work with Siegfried Othmer included infra-low-frequency neurofeedback. The institute's biography documents her professional path; the authors' publications describe their approach and rationale.

The Othmers' infra-low-frequency work represents one branch of neurofeedback's development. Their institutional accounts are useful first-party historical sources, while clinical claims require examination of the relevant studies.

Ayers' place in this story includes both practical equipment development and the transmission of ideas through clinical work. A patent documents an invention; it does not independently establish the clinical effects of a treatment.

The “awakened mind” is the name used in this tradition for a proposed pattern of awareness and EEG activity. It is a historical model, rather than a universal diagnostic category or a single definition of an optimal brain.

Fehmi's attention-centered approach adds another strand to this history: the learner's experience during feedback matters alongside the signal being measured. His own publications explain the framework without making it interchangeable with every neurofeedback protocol.

Including Wyrwicka keeps a foundational experiment connected to its actual authors. It also reminds us that the development of neurofeedback depended on the science of learning as well as on recording technology.

Her inclusion restores the collaborative history behind a paper frequently associated with Lubar alone.

Her contribution was scientific and organizational: a developing field needed places to exchange methods, question claims, and explain its possibilities to the public.

The Greens help place neurofeedback within the wider biofeedback movement. Their historical and experiential writings should be distinguished from contemporary controlled evidence for a particular intervention.

John's contribution helps explain the assessment tools later used alongside neurofeedback. Measuring an unusual EEG pattern and showing that training it improves a person's life are separate steps. Neurometrics was a collaborative program, including Prichep and numerous other investigators.

Source estimation works backward from scalp measurements using a model and assumptions. Its maps are estimates, not direct pictures of activity inside the brain. The original method's deliberately low spatial resolution and its collaborators belong in the story, alongside later developments such as sLORETA and eLORETA.

These early reports helped generate questions about learning and development. Their historical role should be read alongside their study designs and the later need for controlled research; they do not establish that one training protocol will improve every child's learning.

Their collaboration linked EEG learning with outcomes beyond the feedback session. Findings from a particular performance study need replication and do not establish a general enhancement effect.

Changing a measured signal and improving a real-world skill require separate evidence. This research offers a historical example of examining both.

A z-score describes distance from a reference average. It is not, by itself, a diagnosis or a definition of an ideal brain. The 2010 case series documents an approach and clinical observations; it is not a controlled test of comparative effectiveness.

The authors called for statistical testing of the proposed groupings. These patterns should not be treated as established diagnostic categories or automatic instructions for neurofeedback.

This was a proposed framework for further investigation. Its historical importance lies in the questions it opened, not in establishing that a pattern reliably predicts a particular treatment response.

LENS includes low-energy electromagnetic feedback and differs from conventional training in which a person learns through an audiovisual reward. Ochs' account documents the method and its rationale; claims about benefit require their own clinical evidence.

Fisher's contribution belongs to the history of clinical practice and professional education. Her book presents a clinician's framework and experience, which should be distinguished from controlled evidence for a particular treatment or population.