Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation
1978, Vol. 10 (5),632-638
Proposed standard measurement techniques
for the technical specification
of biofeedback devices
CHARLES G. BURGAR and JOHN D. RUGH
Departments ofPsychiatry and Restorative Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Standardized test procedures are proposed that may be used by instrument manufacturers,
investigators, and testing agencies to specify the functional characteristics of biofeedback
devices. The test procedures are intended for EMG, EEG, and EKG feedback devices. Included
are procedures for the specification of electrode characteristics, input impedance, noise,
common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR), filter characteristics, time constant, battery life, and
characteristics of the feedback signal. A variety of novel test procedures are currently being
used to specify biofeedback instrument functional characteristics. Adoption of common test
procedures will improve comparability of equipment, technical specification sheets, and
apparatus technical descriptions in research reports.
Although the clinical application of biofeedback is
yet experimental, a large market has developed for
biofeedback devices designed for clinical applications.
There are currently 54 small companies marketing over
170 different biofeedback devices. Most of these devices
are sold to health professionals for use in research or
for the diagnosis and treatment of stress-related psychophysiological disorders. Factors limiting the use of these
devices are the lack of standardization of instrument
technical characteristics and of the procedures used to
measure them.
The biofeedback devices currently available have
been found to vary widely in important functional
characteristics. In a comparative study of 11 commercial
EMG instruments, Rugh and Schwitzgebel (1977)
reported that input impedance varied from 13 kohm
to more than 1 megohm. Filter bandwidths varied
from 55 to 2,600 Hz. In an earlier comparative study
(Schwitzgebel & Rugh, 1975) of 13 alpha brain-wave
feedback devices, input impedance was found to vary
from 500 ohm to 1 megohm and the alpha-filter center
frequency varied from 7.8 to 14 Hz. Bandwidth varied
from .9 to 16 Hz. This wide variability in instruments
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to compare the
work from different laboratories or clinics. The results
of these studies clearly indicate the need for development of standards.
At this time, technical standards cannot be suggested for most instrument characteristics, since little
research has been done to determine those that are
ideal. There is general agreement on a few instrument
characteristics, such as input impedance and commonmode rejection. But optimum values for many other
Requests for reprints should be directed to John D. Rugh,
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University
of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78284.
important functional characteristics, such as bandpass,
nature of the feedback signal, and time constant, have
not been experimentally determined. An attempt at
this time to standardize biofeedback instrumentation
characteristics would be premature and would likely
stifle the innovative efforts of manufacturers and
researchers.
The situation can be improved, however, by standardizing manufacturers' test and calibration procedures.
Currently, each manufacturer selects from a wide variety
of test procedures to specify the technical characteristics
of their instruments. Different test procedures often
provide different results. This does not allow the user to
make meaningful comparisons between instruments.
Occasionally, unorthodox test procedures are used that
prohibit meaningful technical descriptions of the devices
in research reports. Finally, without comparable
performance data, the consumer cannot compare the
cost effectiveness of different devices. Battery life,
for example, has been found to vary from 15 h to
over 500 h. Unfortunately, manufacturers' specification
sheets often do not reflect such important differences.
It is the purpose of this paper to propose a set of
test and calibration procedures for use in specifying the
functional characteristics of clinical EEG, EMG, and
EKG biofeedback devices. As such, it presents a set of
procedures that may be amended as required by future
technical developments and research. Where possible,
the authors have attempted to use standard nomenclature and procedures common to other biomedical
instrumentation.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERAnONS
AND TEST INSTRUMENTS
(1) All tests should be performed on devices as they
are intended to be used. If performance is degraded
632
PROPOSED STANDARD MEASUREMENT
by accessory equipment, these conditions must be
simulated.
(2) Tests are made with battery-operated test instruments and/or in electrically shielded rooms to facilitate
accurate measurements and reduce 60-Hz interference.
(3) Test instrument calibration must be National
Bureau of Standards traceable and made within the
calibration interval recommended by the manufacturer.
(4) All performance specifications should be provided
in minimum values so that all devices manufactured
will meet the listed specifications. Where variability is
expected because of component tolerance, an attempt
should be made to indicate the expected variability or
. tolerance. System gain, for example, should be given as
80 dB (±l dB).
(5) Amplifier specifications, such as input impedance,
common-mode rejection, and filter characteristics,
should be made through the electrode cables normally
supplied with the device.
(6) When recommended test procedures cannot be
applied because of unusual design techniques, the manufacturer shall so note and supply a detailed description
of the alternative test procedure.
(7) Sine-wave harmonic distortion of signal generators
employed in these tests must not exceed .1%.
(8) Accuracy of amplitude and frequency measurements must be 1% or better. Alternating current (ac)
amplitudes shall be measured with an ac-coupled rootmean-square (RMS) responding device rated for I % or
better accuracy over the frequency range encountered.
PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES
Electrodes
The nature of the electrode greatly influences the
system noise, signal amplitude, signal variability over
time, and the skin-electrode impedance (Geddes, 1972).
It would be desirable to have published specifications
regarding electrode polarization, typical skin-electrode
impedance, and noise. Since these characteristics are
highly dependent upon the user's application and
procedures, standard test procedures have not been
developed. Specification sheets should, however, include
a description of: (I) the type of electrode material
(Ag/AgCl, stainless steel, etc.), (2) the electrode surface
area, (3) the basic design (recessed vs. direct skin contact, sponge, disposable, or resuable, etc.), (4) the length
of the electrode cable, (5) method of attachment to the
subject, and (6) cost per application of expendable
items.
600Hz Suppression
The ability of a bioamplifier to reject 600Hz noise is
dependent upon several instrument design and performance characteristics. Some commercial biofeedback
units have 600Hz notch filters, most have good commonmode rejection characteristics, and many have bandpass
filters that reduce the instrument gain at 60 Hz. Each
of these contributes to the device's ability to reject
633
600Hz noise and must be specified independently. It is
useful to have one collective measure that provides an
indication of the instrument's ability to reject 60-Hz
noise. Such a measure is provided below.
Technique. The 60-Hz suppression figure may be
calculated by the following formula:
20 Log
Differential Gain (midband) .
Common-Mode Gain (60 Hz)
These gain measurements are made as described later
in the Technique section for common-mode rejection
ratio and in Figures 2 and 3. It is recommended that
the "midband" be defined as the geometric mean
rather than the algebraic mean, as most filters are not
symmetrical. The geometric mean may be calculated
as follows:
F 1 represents the lower -3-dB point, and F 2 represents
the upper -3-dB point.
Battery life
The cost effectiveness of a device cannot be adequately estimated without knowledge of the type of
batteries used and the expected battery life. When
rechargeable batteries are employed, it is desirable to
know both the charge and discharge time.
Technique. Battery life is tested under worst-case
conditions, that is, continuous use with an input signal
and with the device in the operating mode that draws
the most current. Ambient temperature during this
measurement should be between 70°F and 80°F. The
batteries should be considered dead when a 10% degradation in any of the performance criteria is observed.
This may be, but is not limited to, a reduction in gain, a
loss of audio volume, distortion of the amplified signal,
or a reduction in the frequency of the voltage-controlled
oscillator used for feedback. The battery employed in
the test must be specified (e.g., Everready 522 Alkaline
9-V batteries).
Input Impedance
The accuracy, common-mode rejection, and 60-Hz
suppression characteristics are dependent in part on the
device's input impedance (Pacela, 1967). Accurately
measuring this parameter is probably more difficult
than any of the other tests listed, but the information
obtained is among the most important. Many biofeedback instrument manufacturers rely on the semiconductor data sheet for the device used in the input
stage for this information. In general, this results in a
figure much higher than the actual impedance due
to the loading effects of circuit capacitance, input
voltage limiting devices, RF bypassing components, and,
as the authors have observed, significant capacitance
in the electrode cables. The following measurement
technique provides a compromise that reflects the
634
BURGAR AND RUGH
performance of the system under normal usage and
includes the error sources mentioned above. Since the
common-mode input impedance is usually much higher
than the differential-mode impedance, only the latter is
determined here.
Technique. The differential input impedance is
specified as a minimum dc resistance in parallel with a
maximum capacitance (e.g., 10 megohm 11310picoF).
The resistance value may be calculated mathematically,
using the input resistance figure provided by the
manufacturer for the input stage device along with the
values of any series or parallel resistance added by the
circuitry of the biofeedback instrument. Alternatively,
for input stages employing de coupling and having low
gain, this figure may be measured by applying a known
differential de voltage (less than that which would
cause saturation of this stage), measuring the resulting
input current flow with a picoammeter (HewlettPackard 419A or equivalent), and taking the ratio of
these two quantities. The latter method is limited to
those amplifiers having input resistance of approximately 10 megohm or less.
The input capacitance is measured by removing the
input amplifier device(s) from the circuit and connecting
the active electrode leads to a capacitance meter having
an accuracy of 5% or better (Hewlett-Packard 4332A or
equivalent). The authors have found the major contribution to input capacitance to come from the electrode
cables and input RF bypass components, with a
negligible error «1 %) resulting from the removal of
the input amplifier device.
This test should be performed with a sufficiently
large sample of electrode cables and feedback instruments to insure that those figures claimed represent
the minimum impedance expected, including allowance
for normal manufacturing tolerances. From the resistance and capacitance values, the midband input
impedance (ac) should be calculated and specified for
the geometric mean frequency of the widest bandpass of
the instrument using the formula:
Noise
The ability to detect the extremely small potential
differences found at the surface of the skin while
monitoring relaxed muscles, high-frequency brain-wave
activity, and so on, is limited by the intrinsic noise of
the measuring system. While noise figure is a common
measurement for comparing the performance of
amplifiers, its minimum at a nonzero source resistance
can be misinterpreted as indicating some "best" value
of source impedance, other than zero (Graeme, 1973).
We recommend the use of an equivalent input noise
specified with a standardized impedance connected to
the amplifier input. This parameter then reflects the
noise contributions from both input noise voltage and
current sources.
Technique. The device to be tested is connected to
all accessories normally used that may result in an
increase in input equivalent noise voltage (enit).
A standard test load is connected from each active
input of the device to the reference input through the
patient electrode cable (see Figure 1). An ac-coupled
RMS responding meter having an accuracy of I % or
better and a frequency response greater than that of
the amplifier is then used to measure the noise voltage
level at the output of the filter stages, if any, but before
the stage where detection of the signal is accomplished.
This RMS voltage level is divided by the small signal
gain at this point in the circuit to yield the equivalent
input noise voltage (enit) in microvolts RMS.
This test is to be made and reported for each available
filter bandwidth setting. For instruments having a large
number of bandpass combinations available, enit may be
specified for only the standard or recommended settings
found in the operating manual and, additionally, for the
widest bandpass available.
RINXc
ZIN = r=;~
2
2
JRIN + Xc
Common-Mode Rejection Ratio (CMRR)
Since most biofeedback training takes place without
the benefit of electromagnetic or electrostatic shielding
of the subject, the instrument used must be capable of
detecting microvolt-level signals generated within the
subject in the presence of interfering signals having
magnitudes as high as several volts, induced in the
1-------1
I 15
I'
I
I
I
:
I
1.15
I
I
I
~
+- :.>-+I~
1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
TEST "':OA~_I
I
I
FI LTER
I
I
L--IVVI.......
I
i
I
I
I
- I
~CE
CIRCUIT
UN~ER
2~
eni
I
I
RMS
VOLTMETER
I
1
Figure 1. Test circuit for measurement of input equivalent noise voltage (enit). Capacitance is shown in
microfarads. Resistors are metal film type.
PROPOSED STANDARD MEASUREMENT
51
200 K
2K
+
402
K
10
ret
-----------------1
I
I
I
RM5
eoul
FILTER
CIRCUIT
RM5
VOLTMETER
635
VOLTMETER
10
Figure 2. Test circuit for differential gain measurement including a 10,000: I attenuator.
All resistors are 1% metal film. The switch (SI) is a normally closed type. It is used to introduce
a step change for time constant measurements. The sine-wave oscillator output impedance is
,;;;600 megohm. The generator output divided by the attenuation factor equals ein'
measuring system by external sources. The ability of a
differential input amplifier to reject such artifact, as
well as those interfering signals generated within the
subject at sites other than that being monitored, is
measured by the CMRR of the amplifier. This parameter
has been defined as the ratio of the differential gain to
the common-mode gain (Gans, 1969).
Since the dominant artifact encountered in monitoring physiological parameters is coupled from the 60-Hz
power lines, many manufacturers of biofeedback instruments include 60-Hz notch filters in their devices to
provide additional attenuation of artifact signals from
this source. A common-mode rejection measurement
made at 60 Hz does not, therefore, accurately reflect the
ability of the feedback instrument to reject unwanted
signals with frequencies other than 60 Hz. Also, source
impedance imbalance results in common-mode signals
being converted to differential-mode signals. It is, therefore, recommended that the common-mode rejection
ratio be measured both at 60 Hz and at the geometric
mean of the amplifier passband with a 2-kohm source
imbalance.
Technique. Using the testing configuration of
Figure 2, the differential-mode gain is measured as the
ratio of eout to ein at 60 Hz and at the geometric mean
of the widest bandpass available on the instrument.
Utilizing the test configuration of Figure 3, the
common-mode gain is also measured as the ratio of eout
2K
r-_.Joy"~>,
+
to ein at 60 Hz and at the geometric mean frequency.
The common-mode rejection ratios, expressed in
decibels, are calculated as:
CMRR (60 Hz, 2K Imbalance)
Differential Gain (60 Hz)
Common-Mode Gain (60 Hz)
CMRR (Midband, 2K Imbalance)
Differential Gain (Midband)
Common-Mode Gain (Midband)
Filter Response
Most biofeedback instruments utilize one or more
filter stages to limit the response of the instrument
to those frequencies present in the signal of interest.
Although marketed to perform the same function,
instruments produced by different manufacturers
have been found to vary widely in their frequency
response characteristics (Rugh & Schwitzgebel, 1977).
To facilitate the evaluation of individual biofeedback
instruments and to allow comparison between instruments of different manufacturers, curvilinear plots
of the output response of the biofeedback unit vs.
frequency should be provided in all sales literature in
1-----------------1
1
1
1
1
1
FILTER
CIRCUIT
Ie
RMS
VOLTMETER
DEVICE UNDER TEST
Figure 3. Test circuit for common-mode gain measurement. The resistor is 1% metal rdm
type. The sine-wave oscillator output impedance is c;; 600 ohms. The gain or sensitivity of
the device under test should be set at midrange.
636
BURGAR AND RUGH
which technical characteristics are cited. A separate
curve should be provided for each filter bandpass
available unless, as is the case with some EEG feedback
devices, a large number of upper and lower filter settings
are available. In such case, the graphs would be given for
each bandpass normally used or recommended in the
instruction manual.
Technique. When testing EMG and EEG equipment,
a linear representation of the detector output is plotted
on the vertical axis against the log of input frequency
on the horizontal axis. The filter response for EKG
instruments is made by detecting the output of the
filter stages with a true RMS responding device and
plotting the magnitude on the horizontal axis. If an
EMG or EEG feedback device lacks a linear output
signal, the graph of the filter response is made as for the
EKG test given above. All graphs are made to cover the
frequency range from one decade below to one decade
above the half-power points of the filter under test. If
the instrument under test has more than one gain
setting, the filter curves are made for the range closest
to the middle of the dynamic range of the instrument.
The following measurements are also made and
reported in any listing of the technical specifications for
a device. If a 60-cycle notch filter is included, the
60-cycle notch depth, expressed in decibels below the
filter's response at the geometric mean frequency, is
measured and reported. The bandpass of the filter, in
hertz, is measured as the difference between the upper
and lower cutoff (-3-dB) points of the filter. Rolloff,
in decibels per octave, is measured as the average slope
of the filter response curve starting at the -3-dB points
and extending for two octaves outside the bandpass.
If the two values are different, the rolloff is reported
for both the high- and low-pass filter skirts. Since most
filter designs yield frequency response characteristics
that are not symmetrical about the algebraic mean of
the band, the center frequency is measured and reported
as the geometric mean frequency, described previously.
Audio Output
The minimum audio output power and the impedance into which this power is delivered are useful
parameters for evaluating biofeedback instruments
having an audio feedback mode. Such information
might be used when selecting devices to be used for
demonstrations before large groups. Knowledge of the
intended load impedance allows the proper type headphone or external speaker to be purchased separately,
if desired.
Technique. For those devices having a steady or
pulsating tone output, the RMS value of the output
power is determined by measuring the RMS voltage
delivered into a resistive load that has a resistance equal
to the recommended load impedance. The power is
determined mathematically as the ratio of the square
of the output voltage divided by the load resistance.
Instruments whose audio output consists of a series
of clicks are rated as to their peak power output,
determined by taking the ratio of the square of the peak
output voltage divided by the load resistance. In either
case, the measurement should be made with the volume
control at its maximum setting and with all auxiliary
equipment connected and operating. The term peak or
RMS is used to indicate which test method was used.
Operating Temperature Range
A range of temperatures over which the technical
specifications are guaranteed should be determined
and included with the other technical data on the
equipment-specification sheets.
Technique. Ideally, a chamber in which the temperature and humidity can be controlled is used to vary the
operating conditions so that any sensitivity to ambient
temperature change is detected. Alternate techniques
may be used to vary the ambient temperature, but the
instrument should be tested for proper operation over
a temperature range of at least 60° to 90°F. All specifications claimed for a device should be valid over at least
this temperature range.
Signal Processing
To enable users to compare results obtained with
biofeedback instruments produced by different manufacturers, information as to the signal-detection method
and the units in which the display is calibrated (RMS,
peak to peak, average, etc.) should be given.
Technique. A verbal description of the input-output
(I/O) relationship between an input level or change
and the resulting feedback response should be provided,
Such a description would contain information about the
characteristics of the feedback signal, such as whether
the output responds linearly or nonlinearly to the input.
For derivative feedback modalities, the rate of change
of the input necessary to produce a given output should
be specified. Graphs showing the I/O relationship for
each mode of feedback and representing the range of
sensitivities available should accompany the verbal
description.
Accuracy
While a relative change of a physiological parameter is
usually the goal of biofeedback training, the ability to
accurately quantify such changes, as well as the initial
and final values, is necessary when making comparisons
between subjects, between sessions, or between biofeedback training facilities. Along with other factors that are
equally important, the overall accuracy of instrument
readings must be known in order to determine the
amount of variability to expect between instruments
of the same manufacturer and model. Due to the differences in filter characteristics and detection methods,
comparison of signal amplitudes cannot be made
between instruments of different manufacturers.
PROPOSED STANDARD MEASUREMENT
Technique. Those feedback instruments responding
to the RMS, peak-to-peak, or average value of the
amplitude of the input signal are calibrated using a sine
wave with less than .1% harmonic distortion and having
a frequency equal to that of the geometric mean of the
passband. The tolerance associated with such calibration
is given as a total percentage and includes the sum of
the tolerances of the signal-generating and measuring
equipment, as well as manufacturing tolerances.
Auxiliary Instrumentation Output Jacks
To facilitate the interfacing of auxiliary equipment
to biofeedback instruments, certain information is
needed. Many researchers use auxiliary recording and
display devices, and a growing number of facilities are
in the process of interfacing small computer systems
to their biofeedback instruments to automate the
collection and the scoring of data. Safe and accurate
interfacing depends on the availability of the following
information.
Technique. The output waveform, sensitivity, range,
and impedance are given for each auxiliary output
jack. If the output is optically isolated, the breakdown
voltage and the leakage at 60 Hz are also indicated.
Time Constant
The speed with which the feedback signal responds
to a change in input level depends on the time constant
of the instrument's circuitry. The input signal change
may consist of differences in amplitude and/or
frequency. Although research has yet to be done to
determine optimum response time, many users feel
that the faster the reinforcement, the sooner control
will be learned.
Technique. Instruments that feed back information
on the amplitude of EMG activity are subjected to a
step increase from 25% to 75% of the full-scale value
of the range that is closest to the middle of the instrument's total range. This is accomplished by using the
test circuit of Figure 2, adjusting the signal generator
for an output equal to 25% of full scale with Switch 1
(SI) open, then closing the switch, which causes the
attenuator output to increase to 75% of full scale. The
time required for the output of the feedback instrument
to achieve 63% of the change to its final value gives
the time constant. Devices with selectable time constants
are tested at the minimum and maximum values
available.
Heart rate feedback instruments are subjected to a
step pulse rate change from 25% to 50% of the instrument's dynamic range, and the time constant is taken
as the time required for the output display to indicate
at least 63% of the total change.
For EEG biofeedback instruments, the time constant
is specified for both frequency and amplitude input
changes. The amplitude response time constant is
measured by determining the number of cycles of input
637
signal that occur before feedback is initiated after the
input, centered at the geometric mean of the selected
bandpass, is stepped from 50% to 150% of threshold,
using the circuit of Figure 2. The frequency response
time constant is measured as the number of cycles of
input signal that occur before feedback is initiated
following ,1 decade step change in input frequency
from below the bandpass to the geometric mean of
the bandpass. During this test, the input signal amplitude
is maintained at 150% of threshold. The frequency
band used in making this test is specified.
Time constant measurements are most conveniently
made by observing the input and output signals on a
storage oscilloscope or, where appropriate, on a chart
recorder.
Maximum Fault Current Through Subject (IF)
Most feedback instruments incorporate some means
of limiting the current through the subject should a
component failure occur. Knowing the maximum value
of this current not only allows the user to assess the
safety aspects of the device, but also to choose those
instruments that would cause the least discomfort to
a subject in the event of a malfunction.
Technique. The steady-state fault current through a
resistance of a kohm connected from each active
electrode to the reference electrode is determined by
inspection of the schematic diagram of the input circuit
for the worst-case failure possible of active components
and/or polarized capacitors. For the purpose of this test,
resistors, nonpolarized capacitors having a voltage rating
at least 50% greater than the maximum potential
difference between power supplies, sockets, switches,
wiring, and printed circuit conductors are not considered
to be subject to failure. Each active (semiconductor)
device is evaluated using internal circuitry information
provided by its manufacturer, and the failure mode is
determined that would result in the largest current
flow through the subject. A similar analysis is performed
for each passive component, other than those exempted
above. Only one component failure is simulated at a
time, unless the failure of one component could
reasonably be expected to lead to the failure of others.
The current IF is taken as the largest of the currents
determined from the above analysis.
DISCUSSION
The use of standard measurement techniques for
specifying instrument characteristics as proposed here
must be differentiated from the development of instrument technical standards. Technical standards require
that instruments meet specific operational and technical
criteria, such as I-megohm input impedance, .5-sec time
constant, and IOO-Hz bandpass. The development of
commercial biofeedback instrumentation is still at an
experimental stage, and ideal instrument characteristics
638
BURGAR AND RUGH
have not been identified. It is thus too early to specify
many instrument technical characteristics. The measurement standards proposed here do not set requirements
for operational characteristics; rather, they simply allow
different device characteristics to be measured using
standardized techniques so that they are comparable.
Although the above measurement techniques cover
a wide range of important operational characteristics,
they are not comprehensive, Lacking, for example, is
a procedure that allows comparison of meter readings of
different EMG devices. Most EMG devices are currently
calibrated with a sine wave at the center of the device's
bandpass. The bandwidth and center frequency of
different devices vary, and since agreement has not been
reached on the frequency spectrum of the EMG signal,
a standard test signal cannot be specified at this time.
Without an agreed-upon test signal, it is futile to attempt
development of a standardized test procedure. Future
research needs to be directed at clarifying the frequencypower spectrum of low-level EMG signals. Based upon
this research, a standard test signal and test procedure
may then be developed.
The proposed test procedures have been verified
on a wide variety of commercial biofeedback devices.
Tested devices varied in front-end design, filter methods,
and signal processing. The proposed test procedures
were applicable to each instrument. There was some
difficulty testing instruments with "potted" front-end
circuitry. Measurement of input capacitance requires
that the input semiconductor devices be removed.
But removal is impossible in instruments whose circuits
have been encapsulated in plastic. This is not likely to
be a limiting factor, as fewer manufacturers are currently
potting circuit boards. Also, measurements can be made
prior to potting.
The Food and Drug Administration, working under
the new medical device laws, has classified biofeedback
devices in Category II, which requires, among other
things, that the devices be regulated by standards. Such
standards have not been developed but will likely
include specifications for safety, performance, and
therapeutic efficacy. The standards and regulations
will ideally be developed by responsible professional
societies, manufacturers' organizations, and representatives of public interest groups. If these societies and
organizations do not accept this responsibility, the
federal government undoubtedly will. The Biofeedback
Society of America and the American Association of
Biofeedback Manufacturers have been working since
1976 with the second author to establish safety
standards for commercial biofeedback devices. The
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation Safe Current limits Standard (SCi-PIO·75) was
accepted by both organizations in March of 1978. The
standards proposed here may serve as guidelines for the
next phase of standards acceptance, which will include
a set of common measurement techniques for specifying
device technical characteristics.
REFERENCES
F. Common-mode rejection ratio: What the specification
sheet doesn't say. Electronics, June 23, 1%9, pp. 116·119.
GEDDES, L. A. Electrodes and the measurement of bioelectric
events. New York: Wiley, 1972.
GRAEME, J. G. Applications of operational amplifiers-Third
generation techniques. New York: McGraw-Hili, 1973.
PACELA, A. F. Collecting the body's signals. Electronics.
July 10, 1%7, pp. 103-112.
RUGH, J. D., & SCHWITZGEBEL, R. L. Variability in commercial
electromyographic biofeedback devices. Behavior Research
Methods & Instrumentation. 1977, 9, 281·285.
SCHWITZGEBEL, R. L., & RUGH, J. D. Of bread, circuses and
alpha machines. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 363-370.
GANS,