Comparison of Frontal EMG Biofeedback and Several Types of Relaxation Instructions in Reducing Multiple Indices of Arousal

Abstract

ABSTRACTDuring the training phase, 96 subjects were given one of four types of relaxation instructions (single instructions, repeated instructions, relaxation training, no instructions) and in addition either did or did not receive frontal EMG biofeedback training. Results indicated that each of the instructions and biofeedback procedures were equally effective in reducing frontal EMG, but that none of these procedures had any effect on subjective anxiety or autonomic indices of arousal (pulse rate, skin temperature, and finger pulse volume). During the generalization/stress phase, subjects were threatened with electric shock and were told to apply the relaxation techniques they learned during the training phase even though no additional instructions and/ or biofeedback training would be provided. To assess the effectiveness of the shock manipulation, a no‐threat control group was included. Results indicated that: a) the shock manipulation was effective in increasing arousal, b) previous instructions and/or biofeedback were equally effective in reducing frontal EMG levels, but that c) only relaxation training was consistently effective in reducing subjective and autonomic indices of arousal. These findings: a) suggest that in stressful situations, relaxation training may be more effective than either EMG biofeedback or simple relaxation instructions in producing a general relaxation effect as opposed to a specific EMG effect; and b) indicate the importance of assessing the effectiveness of relaxation procedures during stressful situations during which subjects’ levels of arousal are elevated above resting baseline levels.