Abstract:
Evaluation of a biofeedback-supported cognitive-behavioral intervention in chronic tinnitus
The beginning of this present paper consists of two parts: On the one hand there are findings about a high patient acceptance regarding biofeedback and on the other hand there is evidence delivered by migraine research stating that the biofeedback-method is superior to cognitive-behavioral approaches. The theoretical background of the second aspect assumes that prior biofeedback helps in recognizing cognitive and emotional influences on body reactions when following the somatic disease model of tinnitus occurrence. This approach favors a psychosomatic view that is considered to be suitable for the following cognitive methods.
Due to a lack of concrete evidence regarding the assumed advantages of biofeedback, we explored the differential share of this psychophysiological approach in the expected intervention effect in this paper for the very first time. Up to date, tinnitus research is not able to present empiric evidence for the relative effectiveness of biofeedback-supported relaxation training compared to a purely cognitive-behavioral procedure.
When assuming that pathological muscle tension intensifies the occurrence of tinnitus, then a coping strategy - improving the patient’s relaxation ability –would reduce his/her impairment. A cognitive-behavioral group intervention and biofeedback training in single setting were combined in a controlled and randomized cross-over study and then compared. Research reports show that cognitive behavioral therapeutic concepts with integrated relaxation training have the highest success rates in cases of chronic tinnitus. The effectiveness test of the 12-week long intervention took place in an outpatient setting and included 112 patients suffering from a light-chronic degree of tinnitus.
The following is a summary of the findings: (1) The central statement of the study was that participating in the 12-week long biofeedback-supported tinnitus coping training resulted in a treatment-specific reduction of the impairment caused by tinnitus, which remained constant over time. For both defined treatment elements, cognitive-behavioral unity in the group setting and biofeedback in the individual setting, evidence for efficacy was provided. (2) While there are positive changes in the ways of coping and handling with the impairment, no improvement regarding mood, sensibility towards noise and catastrophizing was detectable. (3) The increased relaxation ability during the course of the biofeedback-relaxation training is detectable in the physiological relaxation indicator EMG and can also be detected through electrodermal activity. In the area of the m. frontalis and m. masseter, there are significant tension reductions (EMG) from the beginning of the session to the end of the session as well as from the first to the sixth biofeedback unit. (4) In regards to the differential share of the biofeedback, there is empirical evidence for psychophysiological biofeedback training having the tendency of being superior to cognitive behavioral-oriented group programs. (5) For predicting the success of treatment, the degree of severity of tinnitus as well as the tension reduction in the area of the m. frontalis in the first biofeedback session with inclusion of the partial sample RF 2 (beginning with biofeedback) seem to be strong predictors. (6) All in all, biofeedback with its supporting function in cases of documented high patient acceptance presents itself as a very suitable treatment component when being part of an outpatient behavioral-therapeutic approach in chronic tinnitus. (7) A first proposal for future studies refers to the test design used in this case. A methodic alternative, which would help in avoiding a method deficit caused by cross-over design, would be the additional definition of two parallel intervention conditions with pure behavioral therapy as well as pure biofeedback training.