John Anderson and John Davis Answer Your Questions About Learning Processes and Mindfulness in Neurofeedback

In this installment, John Anderson and John Davis discuss the learning processes underlying neurofeedback and the role of mindfulness.

Which Learning Processes Are Involved in Neurofeedback?

Reinforcement

Reinforcement through operant conditioning happens when a consequence that follows a behavior makes that behavior more likely to happen again in similar situations. Skinner box graphic © VectorMine/shutterstock.com.

This consequence could be giving a reward (positive reinforcer) or taking away something unpleasant (negative reinforcer). Whether something actually works as a reinforcer depends entirely on whether it changes the behavior—if the behavior increases, it's a reinforcer; if not, it isn't. Due to individual differences, we cannot know in advance whether a consequence will be reinforcing or punishing, as these properties are not inherent to the consequence itself. We can only determine whether a consequence is reinforcing or punishing by measuring its effect on the behavior that preceded it. In neurofeedback, a movie that motivates the best performance might reinforce the client, regardless of the therapist's personal preference.

Positive reinforcement increases the frequency of a desired behavior by making a desired outcome contingent on acting. For example, a child’s increased fidgeting causes the sound of static.

Negative reinforcement increases the frequency of a desired behavior by making the avoidance, termination, or postponement of an unwanted outcome contingent on acting. For example, an athlete's anxiety decreases by shifting from high beta to low beta.

Positive punishment decreases or eliminates an undesirable behavior by associating it with unwanted consequences. For example, a child's increased fidgeting dims the screen and lowers the sound.

Negative punishment decreases or eliminates an undesirable behavior by removing what is desired. For example, oppositional behavior could result in a clinician turning off a popular game.

In neurofeedback, feedback is presented when a target state (e.g., SMR amplitude above a specified threshold) is achieved. The provider uses the software interface on the computer screen to control details of the feedback presentation such as threshold and duration of time above (or below) the required threshold in this way shaping the maintenance of a target state for longer durations.

Visual animations, tones, or points function as reinforcers only if they increase the probability of that state. Three design variables drive results: contingency (tight linkage to the signal), contiguity (minimal delay), and schedule (e.g., small continuous feedback plus intermittent “bonus” events to reduce habituation). These principles map directly from basic operant science to NFB display and scoring choices (Skinner, 1953).

Classical Conditioning

Where does classical conditioning fit into neurofeedback?

Classical conditioning, discovered by Pavlov in 1927 through his famous research with dogs, is an unconscious learning process that establishes connections between events that occur together in time. (Due to faulty English translations, we now say "conditioned" and "unconditioned" instead of Pavlov's original terms "conditional" and "unconditional"—we'll use the current terms to avoid confusion.)

Here's how it works: You start with a neutral stimulus that doesn't cause any response. You repeatedly pair it with something (unconditioned stimulus) that naturally causes a physiological response (unconditioned response). Eventually, the neutral stimulus begins to elicit a similar physical response on its own—it becomes a conditioned stimulus that produces a conditioned response.

Pavlov's dogs show this perfectly. Before any training, dogs naturally salivated (an unconditioned response) when they saw food (an unconditioned stimulus). A bell, by itself, meant nothing to them—it was a neutral stimulus that didn't cause salivation. But Pavlov repeatedly rang a bell just before giving the dogs food. Soon, the dogs learned that the bell meant food was on its way. The bell became a conditioned stimulus that elicited salivation (a conditioned response) even before the food appeared. Graphic © VectorMine/iStockphoto.com.

This learning enables us to predict the future based on experience, which is crucial for survival—it gives us time to prepare. But what happens when these predictions stop being accurate?

When the connection between the conditioned stimulus and response breaks down—because the expected outcome no longer follows—the conditioned response may weaken or disappear. This is called extinction. In Pavlov's lab, when the bell repeatedly rang without food following, the dogs eventually stopped salivating. Extinction helps us adapt to changes in our world. You can learn to play with dogs again after being bitten as a child.

Interestingly, Pavlov argued that extinction isn't forgetting—it's new learning that overrides old learning. The phenomenon of spontaneous recovery supports this idea: dogs that stopped salivating by the end of a session where no food followed the bell would start salivating again after a break or during the next session.

Two other important processes are generalization and discrimination, which are opposites. Generalization is when we apply what we've learned in one situation to similar situations. Think of Pavlov's dogs: after learning to salivate to a high-pitched bell, they might also salivate to a low-pitched bell. This ability helps us survive—we can apply what we've learned about one danger (like lions) to similar threats (like tigers) without having to experience them directly.

In neurofeedback, there are three types of generalization: stimulus generalization, response generalization, and temporal generalization. Stimulus generalization refers to a trained behavior occurring in situations somewhat different from where it was first learned—this is the most important type for neurofeedback. Response generalization refers to the phenomenon where a slightly different response occurs to the same stimulus. Temporal generalization refers to the behavior continuing after training has ended.

Stimulus generalization is crucial for neurofeedback because the whole point is for beneficial brain states learned in the provider's office to transfer to real-life situations that matter to the client. A client needs to develop those focused attention states from training to work effectively during actual work meetings or school tests.

Here's the key insight: Decades of applied behavior analysis research demonstrate that generalization doesn't occur by accident—it must be deliberately engineered (Stokes & Baer, 1977). Successful neurofeedback practitioners build generalization into their training from the start. They vary the training contexts and task demands. They interleave brief "state probes" to test whether the skill is being transferred. They schedule booster check-ins to help gains last over time.

One powerful tool is creating written If-Then plans that act as portable cues in everyday settings. For example: "If I feel rushed or anxious, then I will take one slow exhale, broaden my visual field, and recall my last training success." These simple action plans help bridge the gap between the training room and the real world, ensuring that the brain states cultivated during neurofeedback become accessible tools for daily life.

Discrimination

Discrimination in classical conditioning is the ability to learn when to be afraid and when to feel safe. It means responding with fear to a real danger signal (CS+, like gunfire) while staying calm for a safe signal (CS−, like fireworks). When this system works properly, the nervous system learns two things: to predict threats from danger cues (CS+) and to feel safe with safety cues (CS−).

In PTSD, research consistently shows that this discrimination system breaks down. People can't properly distinguish between danger and safety signals. Instead, they generalize their fear from actual danger cues to similar but harmless things. That's why fireworks, car backfires, or slamming doors can trigger the same intense response as actual gunfire (Jovanovic, Norrholm, Fani, & Duncan, 2010; Lissek, 2012; Morey, Dunsmoor, Haswell, Brown, McCarthy, & LaBar, 2015).

Scientists measure this problem using the AX+/BX− test. In this test, people learn that the combination "AX" means danger while "BX" means safety. People with PTSD show normal fear to the danger combination (AX), but they can't suppress their fear to the safety combination (BX). This shows they're failing to create or access safety memories (Jovanovic et al., 2010).

In the brain, this pattern involves several regions working incorrectly: the amygdala (salience center) overreacts to conditioned cues, the hippocampus (memory center) struggles with context and overgeneralizes, and the prefrontal cortex (control center) fails to properly engage during safety learning and extinction recall (Dunsmoor & Paz, 2015; Maren, Phan, & Liberzon, 2013; Milad & Quirk, 2012).

From a classical conditioning perspective, neurofeedback works by adjusting conditioned responses and helping the brain retrieve safety memories—not by "reinforcing a behavior" in the operant sense.

EEG-based neurofeedback that promotes alpha or SMR brain states (associated with calm alertness) can reduce overreactions to safety cues and improve the brain's ability to distinguish between real threats and false alarms (Nicholson, Rabellino, Densmore, Frewen, Ros, & Lanius, 2020).

Real-time fMRI neurofeedback takes a more direct approach by training people to reduce amygdala activity while recalling trauma-related images. Studies show this leads to fewer PTSD symptoms and better emotional regulation. This improvement makes sense because it weakens conditioned fear responses to trauma cues and strengthens the ability to recall safety (Zhao, Kirlic, Cosgrove, Craske, Paulus, & Khalsa, 2023; Zotev, Phillips, Young, Drevets, & Bodurka, 2018).

In classical conditioning terms, these neurofeedback protocols aim to reduce fear responses to non-threatening cues and strengthen the brain's processing of safety signals. The goal is to help the nervous system treat fireworks as just fireworks again—not as danger signals requiring a full fear response.

Classical Conditioning in Neurofeedback

In neurofeedback, classical conditioning adds another layer to the learning process. The beneficial brain states shaped through operant conditioning (reward-based training) also become linked through classical conditioning to thoughts, mental images, actions, or situations that happen during training. Later, when those thoughts or situations arise outside of training, they can automatically trigger the same beneficial brain states, thereby increasing the likelihood of success.

For example, a simple state-entry routine—one slow exhale, a softening of gaze, and a cue tone—can be paired with successful brain state changes during training. Eventually, this routine itself will trigger the target brain pattern outside the training room. This classical conditioning layer works in conjunction with operant conditioning to help transfer skills to real-world settings, such as tests, meetings, or performances.

Metacognitive Strategies

What are metacognitive strategies? What is their relationship to neurofeedback?

Metacognition—literally “thinking about thinking”—is the capacity to observe, evaluate, and regulate one’s own mental processes. It encompasses both metacognitive knowledge (understanding how one thinks and learns) and metacognitive control (using that understanding to guide attention, emotion, and behavior). In neurofeedback, metacognition forms the bridge between the neural patterns trained in-session and their application in real-world contexts.

During neurofeedback training, clients learn to recognize subtle internal cues associated with target brain states—such as slower breathing, steadier focus, or a sense of relaxed alertness. Initially, this learning is often implicit: the brain responds to real-time feedback signals without requiring conscious analysis. Over repeated sessions, however, trainees begin to reflect consciously on what “it feels like” when feedback improves. They start asking themselves, What am I doing mentally when the feedback tone becomes steady? What changes when it stops? These reflections mark the emergence of metacognitive awareness.

This awareness enables a critical transition—from automatic conditioning to intentional self-regulation. Once a client can articulate or recognize the qualities of their optimal state (“I widen my attention field,” “I breathe slower,” “My thoughts quiet but stay clear”), they can deliberately re-enter that state outside the training environment. In effect, metacognition turns the feedback system inward: the brain becomes its own trainer. This shift aligns with findings from both cognitive neuroscience and applied biofeedback research showing that explicit self-monitoring amplifies neuroplastic learning.

Metacognition also supports transfer and generalization, two central goals of neurofeedback. In the clinic, clients experience controlled conditions—consistent lighting, minimal distractions, predictable stimuli. Life, by contrast, offers complexity: deadlines, social pressures, and emotional triggers. When clients learn to reflect on their thought processes, they gain a portable toolkit. They can recall, label, and reapply what worked in the lab—voluntarily invoking the neural and psychological patterns associated with successful feedback performance. For instance, a student who trained to stabilize mid-beta rhythms for sustained attention might later recall that same focused, calm state during an exam. A combat veteran who practiced alpha-theta regulation might consciously evoke a slower breathing rhythm and grounded imagery when stress cues arise in traffic.

In this sense, metacognitive skills are the vehicle for neurofeedback transfer. Without it, gains risk remaining context-bound—effective only when the tone or visual reward is present. With it, the individual becomes capable of self-cueing, recognizing when arousal or focus drifts, and applying learned adjustments proactively. This is why advanced neurofeedback protocols often pair signal-based feedback with guided reflection, journaling, or “self-observation” periods between sessions. These strategies cultivate the habit of naming and describing internal shifts, a cornerstone of metacognitive growth.

Moreover, metacognition enriches motivation and self-efficacy. When clients realize that changes in brain activity are linked to their intentional choices and mental habits, they develop a sense of agency—“I can influence my own state.” This belief predicts adherence and long-term benefit.

Neuroimaging research supports this, showing that the same prefrontal networks that support metacognitive evaluation (particularly the dorsolateral and anterior cingulate cortices) also participate in attention regulation and error monitoring—two key systems that neurofeedback aims to optimize.

Metacognition also helps refine training itself. Skilled practitioners encourage clients to articulate observations about their mental strategies, enabling iterative protocol adjustments. A client’s comment, such as “When I relax too much, the feedback drops,” provides valuable insight into whether the target frequency represents calm alertness or drowsiness. In this collaborative loop, practitioner and client engage in a metacognitive dialogue, integrating subjective awareness with objective data, thereby transforming neurofeedback into a dynamic learning partnership rather than a passive experience.

In short, metacognitive skills contribute to the longevity of neurofeedback. They transform transient, signal-based learning into a durable, self-directed capability. Clients who cultivate metacognitive awareness do not merely achieve improved EEG coherence or alpha amplitude—they gain an operational language for recognizing and reproducing mental states associated with focus, composure, or creativity. Over time, this capacity generalizes beyond formal training to daily decision-making, interpersonal regulation, and adaptive coping.

Metacognition, then, is not an add-on to neurofeedback—it is the expression of what neurofeedback ultimately teaches: awareness, self-observation, and self-modulation of the brain–mind system in real time.

How Can Mindfulness Reinforce Neurofeedback?

Mindfulness as systematic training in attentive, non-reactive awareness originates in early Buddhist practice, often referred to as sati. The late 20th century saw its translation into contemporary health and psychology through Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and related programs (Kabat-Zinn, 2003).

Understanding Mindfulness in Practical Terms

Dr. Inna Khazan prefers Christopher Germer's definition of mindfulness as "preverbal awareness of the present moment with acceptance" (Khazan, 2019, p. 102). Preverbal awareness means the sensory experience that precedes verbal description.

Dr. Inna Khazan

A widely used operational account describes mindfulness through two components: first, the self-regulation of attention toward present-moment experience, and second, an orientation of openness, curiosity, and non-judgment to whatever is noticed (Bishop et al., 2004). This pragmatic definition pairs well with Kabat-Zinn's formulation of paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgmentally, and has guided measurement and training programs used in clinical and research settings (Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 2003).

This two-component model matters because it's actionable. It clarifies what to practice through sustained, flexible attention and how to relate to experience through an accepting, non-reactive stance. Both elements become directly relevant when pairing mindfulness with feedback signals (Bishop et al., 2004).

The Neural Signatures of Mindful Awareness

Modern reviews converge on mindfulness enhancing self-regulation via three interlocking capacities: attention control, emotion regulation, and self/embodied awareness (Hölzel et al., 2011; Tang, Hölzel, & Posner, 2015). At the network level, experienced practitioners often show altered activity and connectivity within the default mode network (DMN), notably reduced posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) engagement during focused attention and open monitoring, alongside strengthened coupling with attention networks (Brewer et al., 2011).

At the oscillatory level, EEG studies frequently report increased alpha and theta power during mindfulness practice, though there's heterogeneity across techniques and expertise levels. These changes suggest shifts toward relaxed yet attentive states (Cahn & Polich, 2006; Lomas, Ivtzan, & Fu, 2015).

The essential finding is that mindfulness changes how attention and affect are regulated, with measurable correlates in large-scale networks such as the DMN and in spectral rhythms, particularly alpha and theta waves (Brewer et al., 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011; Lomas et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015).

The Convergence Point

Mindfulness cultivates meta-awareness of attention and mind-wandering, while neurofeedback supplies a mirror for internal states through signals like alpha traces or PCC activity readings. This creates a tighter loop between subjective noticing and objective signal change (Ros et al., 2014; Sitaram et al., 2017).

Default Mode Regulation and Insight

Real-time fMRI neurofeedback from the posterior cingulate cortex, a hub of the default mode network, shows that experienced meditators can volitionally decrease PCC activity when cued. This mirrors their subjective shift toward focused attention (Garrison et al., 2013).

Overlapping Brain Rhythms

Mindfulness practices often accompany increases in alpha and theta waves. Some EEG neurofeedback protocols train these same frequency ranges to support calm alertness and attentional control, offering a concrete scaffold for beginners learning to stabilize the mindful state (Cahn & Polich, 2006; Lomas et al., 2015).

The Emergence of Mindfulness-Based Neurofeedback

Recent systematic reviews suggest that pairing mindfulness with EEG or fMRI neurofeedback may enhance learning and clarify neural mechanisms. The field shows promise but remains methodologically diverse, so conclusions remain cautious (Treves et al., 2024).

Practical Integration Strategies

Before beginning a session, practitioners can set a brief intention such as noticing the breath and meeting each signal without judgment. They should review what the feedback represents, whether alpha power or DMN node activity (Bishop et al., 2004).

During the feedback session itself, the breath or another agreed anchor serves to stabilize attention. The feedback display becomes just another sensation to observe. The practitioner notices, names what they observe such as rising, falling, wandering, or returning, then re-centers. The aim isn't to force the graph but to practice non-reactive adjustments, letting the brain-signal cue refine awareness (Hölzel et al., 2011; Sitaram et al., 2017).

After sessions, briefly noting which strategies felt steadying, whether widening awareness or maintaining narrow focus, helps track progress. Over time, discussing patterns with supervising professionals keeps goals educational and realistic (Treves et al., 2024).

Realistic Expectations

Users should expect a learning curve, as many need multiple sessions to map inner cues to feedback changes, and responses vary considerably between individuals (Sitaram et al., 2017). There will be variability across different mindfulness styles and feedback targets, with EEG and fMRI measures differing in their specificity and practical demands (Deolindo, 2020; Lomas et al., 2015).

It's important not to expect mindfulness-plus-neurofeedback to serve as a stand-alone treatment. Its role is best viewed as skills training within broader, ethically guided care (Ros et al., 2014; Treves et al., 2024).

Resources

We recommend Dr. Inna Khazan's superb Biofeedback and mindfulness in everyday life for examples of how to deliver biofeedback and neurofeedback within this framework.

Key Takeaways

1. Operant reinforcement is the primary learning mechanism in neurofeedback: contingent, minimally delayed feedback that reliably increases a target brain state (positive or negative reinforcement) drives behavioral change; display design must prioritize contingency, contiguity, and an appropriate reinforcement schedule.

   
   

2. Classical (Pavlovian) conditioning provides a secondary route to transfer: cues or routines paired with successful in-session states can become conditioned triggers that evoke those states outside the clinic, but they are subject to extinction, spontaneous recovery, generalization, and discrimination.

   
   

3. Metacognitive strategies convert implicit feedback learning into intentional self-regulation by helping trainees detect, label, and reproduce the subjective markers of target brain states, thereby improving transfer and maintenance.

   
   

4. Mindfulness training complements neurofeedback by strengthening attention control, emotion regulation, and DMN modulation; pairing mindfulness anchors (e.g., breath awareness) with feedback can tighten the subjective–objective loop and accelerate skill acquisition, although the literature remains heterogeneous.

   
   

5. Clinical success depends on deliberate engineering of generalization and discrimination (vary training contexts, probe state access, schedule boosters), individualizing reinforcers, and setting realistic expectations about variability and required practice.

   
   

Glossary

amygdala: a limbic structure involved in detecting salience and mediating conditioned fear responses.

attention control: the capacity to sustain, shift, and selectively deploy attention; a core mechanism cultivated in mindfulness.

beta waves: EEG activity ≈13–30 Hz associated with alert thinking and task engagement.

classical (respondent) conditioning: cue-outcome learning where a conditioned stimulus predicts an unconditioned outcome and elicits a conditioned response.

closed-loop training: a feedback paradigm in which neural activity is measured, translated into immediate signals, and used by the learner to adjust state and behavior in real time.

conditioned response (CR): a learned response elicited by a conditioned stimulus after pairing.

conditioned stimulus (CS+ / CS−): a cue paired with an outcome (threat = CS+, safety = CS−) in Pavlovian learning.

contiguity: the immediacy between a neural event and feedback; shorter delays strengthen learning.

contingency: the reliability with which a feedback event depends on a target neural state.

default mode network (DMN): interacting brain regions prominent at rest (e.g., posterior cingulate cortex); often shows reduced activity and altered connectivity during mindfulness. delta waves: EEG activity ≈0.5–4 Hz common in deep sleep and early development.

discrimination: the learned ability to respond to danger cues and withhold responses to safety cues.

emotion regulation: processes that monitor and modulate affect; strengthened through mindfulness via reappraisal, exposure, and acceptance mechanisms.

fear-potentiated startle: a startle reflex amplification to a threat cue; used to assess fear learning and inhibition.

focused attention (FA) meditation: the practice of sustaining attention on a chosen object (e.g., breath) and returning when distracted; reliably impacts DMN dynamics.

functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): a neuroimaging method indexing hemodynamic responses; enables region-specific neurofeedback.

hippocampus: a medial temporal structure involved in context processing and generalization gradients.

meta-awareness (meta-cognitive awareness): the ongoing recognition of the current contents and quality of attention; cultivated by mindfulness and leveraged by feedback signals.

metacognition: the awareness and regulation of one’s own thinking; noticing, labeling, and adjusting mental states.

mindfulness-based neurofeedback (MBNF): the integration of mindfulness training with EEG or fMRI neurofeedback to scaffold state acquisition and mechanism clarity. mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR): a standardized 8-week program translating mindfulness into health contexts through formal practices and psychoeducation.

negative punishment: in operant conditioning, learning by observing others. For example, a child’s oppositional behavior could result in a clinician turning off a popular game.

negative reinforcement: in operant conditioning, a process that increases the frequency of the desired behavior by making the avoidance, termination, or postponement of an unwanted outcome contingent on acting. For example, an athlete’s anxiety decreases by shifting from high beta to low beta, rewarding this self-regulation.

neutral stimulus (NS): in classical conditioning, a stimulus that does not elicit a response. For example, a bell before pairing with food.

open monitoring (OM) meditation: the nonselective, receptive awareness of moment-to-moment experience without fixation on a single object; often linked to DMN modulation.

operant conditioning: learning in which consequences alter the probability of a response; used for contingent feedback.

positive punishment: in operant conditioning, a process that decreases or eliminates an undesirable behavior by associating it with unwanted consequences. For example, a child's increased fidgeting dims the screen and lowers the sound.

positive reinforcement: in operant conditioning, a process that decreases or eliminates an undesirable behavior by associating it with unwanted consequences. For example, a movie plays when a client increases low-beta and decreases theta activity.

posterior cingulate cortex (PCC): a DMN hub whose downregulation tracks shifts toward focused, less self-referential awareness; trainable with real-time fMRI neurofeedback.

prefrontal cortex (PFC): frontal networks supporting cognitive control, error monitoring, and metacognition.

preverbal awareness: our sensory experience before it is described using words.

qEEG (quantitative EEG): the statistical/spectral analysis of the EEG with topographic mapping and database comparison.

real-time fMRI neurofeedback (rtfMRI-NFB): a protocol presenting instantaneous BOLD-based signals from defined ROIs (e.g., PCC) to guide volitional modulation.

response generalization: the spread of a conditioned response to include other, related reactions to the same cue. After conditioning, the same stimulus may evoke several similar responses—for example, calm breathing and muscle relaxation, both of which are triggered by a relaxation tone in neurofeedback.

spontaneous recovery: the re-emergence of a conditioned response after extinction and a delay; evidence for new learning.

stimulus generalization: the spread of responding to similar cues. A stimulus resembling the original conditioned cue also elicits the learned response—for instance, calm focus from neurofeedback appearing in new settings because environmental cues resemble those from training.

temporal generalization: the persistence of learned responding after training ends across time.

theta waves: EEG activity ≈4–8 Hz associated with drowsiness, memory processes, and some training protocols.

ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC): a region implicated in safety learning and extinction recall.

References

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Brewer, J. A., Worhunsky, P. D., Gray, J. R., Tang, Y.-Y., Weber, J., & Kober, H. (2011). Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20254–20259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112029108

Cahn, B. R., & Polich, J. (2006). Meditation states and traits: EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 180–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.180

Dunsmoor, J. E., & Paz, R. (2015). Fear generalization and anxiety: Behavioral and neural mechanisms. Biological Psychiatry, 78(5), 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.04.010

Garrison, K. A., Scheinost, D., Worhunsky, P. D., Elwafi, H. M., Thornhill, T. A. IV, Thompson, E., Saron, C., Desbordes, G., Kober, H., Hampson, M., Gray, J. R., Constable, R. T., Papademetris, X., & Brewer, J. A. (2013). Real-time fMRI links subjective experience with brain activity during focused attention. NeuroImage, 81, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.030

Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611419671

Jovanovic, T., Norrholm, S. D., Blanding, N. Q., Davis, M., Duncan, E., Bradley, B., & Ressler, K. J. (2010). Impaired fear inhibition is a biomarker of PTSD but not depression. Depression and Anxiety, 27(3), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20663

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

Khazan, I. (2019). Biofeedback and mindfulness in everyday life. Norton.

Lissek, S. (2012). Toward an account of clinical anxiety predicated on basic, neurally mapped mechanisms of Pavlovian fear-learning: The case for conditioned overgeneralization. Depression and Anxiety, 29(4), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.21922

Lomas, T., Ivtzan, I., & Fu, C. H. Y. (2015). A systematic review of the neurophysiology of mindfulness on EEG oscillations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.018

Maren, S., Phan, K. L., & Liberzon, I. (2013). The contextual brain: Implications for fear conditioning, extinction, and psychopathology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(6), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3492

Milad, M. R., & Quirk, G. J. (2012). Fear extinction as a model for translational neuroscience: Ten years of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131631

Morey, R. A., Dunsmoor, J. E., Haswell, C. C., Brown, V. M., McCarthy, G., & LaBar, K. S. (2015). Fear learning circuitry is biased toward generalization of fear associations in posttraumatic stress disorder. Translational Psychiatry, 5, e700. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.196

Nicholson, A. A., Rabellino, D., Densmore, M., Frewen, P., Paret, C., Kluetsch, R., … Lanius, R. A. (2017). The neurobiology of emotion regulation in PTSD: Amygdala downregulation via real‑time fMRI neurofeedback. Human Brain Mapping, 38(1), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23402

Ros, T., Baars, B. J., Lanius, R. A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2014). Tuning pathological brain oscillations with neurofeedback: A systems neuroscience framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01008

Sitaram, R., Ros, T., Stoeckel, L., Haller, S., Scharnowski, F., Lewis-Peacock, J., Weiskopf, N., Blefari, M. L., Rana, M., Oblak, E., Birbaumer, N., & Sulzer, J. (2017). Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.164

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.

Sterman, M. B., Wyrwicka, W., & Howe, R. C. (1969). Behavioral and neurophysiological studies of the sensorimotor rhythm in the cat. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 27(7), 678–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(69)91281-4

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349

Tang, Y.-Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916 Treves, I. N., Greene, K. D., Bajwa, Z., Wool, E., Kim, N., Bauer, C. C. C., Bloom, P. A., Pagliaccio, D., Zhang, J., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Auerbach, R. P. (2024). Mindfulness-based neurofeedback: A systematic review of EEG and fMRI studies. Imaging Neuroscience, 2, Article imag-2-00396. https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00396

Zhao, Z., Kirlic, N., Cosgrove, K. T., Craske, M. G., Paulus, M. P., & Khalsa, S. S. (2023). Amygdala downregulation training using fMRI neurofeedback in post‑traumatic stress disorder: A randomized, double‑blind trial. Translational Psychiatry, 13, 167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02467-6

Zotev, V., Phillips, R., Misaki, M., Wong, C. K., Wurfel, B. E., Krueger, F., Feldner, M., & Bodurka, J. (2018). Real‑time fMRI neurofeedback training of the amygdala activity with simultaneous EEG in veterans with combat‑related PTSD. NeuroImage: Clinical, 19, 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.04.010

About the Authors

John S. Anderson, MA, LADC, BCB, BCN, QEEGD, is a veteran neurofeedback practitioner and educator with over five decades of experience in biofeedback and neurofeedback, beginning his work in 1974. He holds a master's degree in psychology and is certified by the Biofeedback Certification International Alliance (BCIA) and the International QEEG Certification Board. As the founder of the Minnesota Neuro-Training Institute, Anderson provides clinical services, mentorship, and professional training in neurotherapy. His clientele includes individuals with ADHD, learning disorders, chronic pain, and addiction. He is also a recognized instructor, offering BCIA-approved courses and QEEG certification programs, and contributes to educational initiatives such as Biosource Software's "Seminars Without Borders." Anderson integrates holistic healing practices with contemporary neurophysiological research to develop effective neurofeedback protocols.

Dr. John Raymond Davis is an adjunct lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences at McMaster University's Faculty of Health Sciences. His scholarly contributions include research on EEG changes in major depression and case studies on neurological conditions. ​

Support Our Friends

John Anderson and John Davis Answer Your Questions About Learning Processes and Mindfulnes.

Download • 1.81MB