Journal oj Experimental Psychology: General 1976, Vol. 105, No. 1, 109-121

Appraising the Ephemeral "Alpha Phenomenon": A Reply to Hardt and Kamiya William B. Plotkin University of Colorado Hardt and Kamiya (1976) present a rather misleading picture of my research (Plotkin, 1976) and of the "state of the art" of alpha feedback research in general. They do this by (a) making numerous assertions of an empirical nature without any empirical data for support and (.b) not discussing the relevant research that is available (including Kamiya's own earlier work), most of which is inconsistent with their position. In this reply, I shall try to make up for these deficiencies in Hardt and Kamiya's commentary. A brief review of the relevant research and of the nature of the "alpha phenomenon" will make it clear which conclusions are warranted by the available data and what needs to be done to resolve the remaining issues. Let us begin by considering Hardt and Kamiya's claim that I used "less than optimal methodology." Logically, this assertion would have to be based on either (a) specified research that found significantly higher levels of control than I did, or, better, (b) specified research that independently varied different aspects of the feedback methodology such that the features of my procedure that they criticize were specifically compared with some other methodology, with a finding of higher control scores with the latter. However, we will find that at no point did Hardt and Kamiya offer evidence of either kind. In fact, they offer only their opinions and speculations as to what may constitute an "optimal methodology." Before we consider the available data, let us briefly review the historical sources of

Requests for reprints should be sent to William B. Plotkin, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.

the alpha phenomenon. When my research (Plotkin, 1976) was designed, in the spring of 1973, I was interested in investigating, in a more cautious and well-controlled manner than earlier studies, the phenomenon of alpha •control and the associated subjective states. At that time, the alpha phenomenon had come to the attention of the public and the scientific communities chiefly through four research reports—those of Brown (1970), Kamiya (1968, 1969), and Nowlis and Kamiya (1970). It is important to remember in the following discussion that these four reports still constitute practically the only primary sources for the very existence of the alpha phenomenon, and that they were —and still are—the most widely referenced research reports in the area. In light of these facts, I will begin by comparing my methodology with the procedures of these four "classic" studies, which reported both successful alpha enhancement and reliable subjective associations to enhanced alpha. Hardt and Kamiya have three major criticisms of my methodology: (a) training times were too short, (b) half of the training was with eyes open and lights on, and (c) I switched between enhance, rest, and suppress trials. First let us consider training length. Although Brown (1970) gave her research participants four sessions of 50-min feedback, she found that the subjective reports she obtained were "relatively consistent over the four practice sessions," so that 50 min of feedback were sufficient to obtain her results. Moreover, Brown's subjects were never able to enhance alpha as high as their prefeedback, eyes-iclosed baseline periods. Nevertheless, Brown found that the subjective experiences of her participants during enhanced alpha were "uniform," with frequent reports of pleasant thoughts and

109

110

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

feelings, "dissolved into the environment," floating, etc. Kamiya (1968), who reported that "people can be taught conscious control of their brain activity in a relatively short time" (p. 57), and whose subjects reported states "closely resembling descriptions of Zen and Yoga meditation" (p. 58), appears to have given his subjects only 20 min each of suppression and enhancement training, although this discursive report is unclear. Kamiya (1969) reported an experiment in which his research participants had only 8J min each of enhancement and suppression training. Nevertheless, most of these persons apparently reported the "high alpha state." Finally, in Nowlis and Kamiya's (1970) study, which found "significant" enhancement of alpha that was associated with "mental states reflecting relaxation, 'letting go,' and pleasant affect" (p. 476), subjects had less than 20 min of total feedback time. Relative to these four classic studies, my procedure of giving 72 min of feedback seems quite adequate for research that was specifically designed to determine, as one of its major goals, whether or not the results of these earlier studies would replicate. 'Moreover, Hardt and Kamiya's claim that significant alpha enhancement and the occurrence of "alpha experiences" require at least 140 min of training directly contradicts the findings of these earlier studies. Next let us consider the issue of having eyes open and the lights on. Brown (1970, 1971), who found subjective associations of similar kind and strength as Kamiya (1968, 1969), trained all her subjects with eyes open and the lights on. (In fact, she used visual feedback.) However, of even greater interest is Nowlis and Kamiya's (1970) study, in which 16 persons were trained with eyes closed and 10 with eyes open (in a "moderately darkened" room) : The authors reported no significant differences in subjective reports between these two groups. With these facts in mind, it would seem that my procedure of allowing each research participant to attempt alpha control under both conditions (i.e., where "looking" is likely—eyes open, lights on—and where

"looking" is unlikely—lights off) was the most thorough way of investigating the alpha phenomenon. Considering that Brown (1970) and Nowlis and Kamiya (1970) also trained their subjects with eyes open, one can only be puzzled by the following remark by Hardt and Kamiya concerning my study: In a study which had as one of its objectives the assessment of the subjective qualities of enhanced alpha, the requirement of training with eyes open in a lighted room for half of the total training time is surprising. It is rather like asking persons to experience a state which they are prevented from experiencing, (p. 102)

It is peculiar, to say the least, that one of the conditions under which a phenomenon was discovered is now asserted to be a good way of preventing that same phenomenon. Evidently, the alpha phenomenon is a rather ephemeral one indeed. Finally there is the question of the length and order of trials. My trials were all 3 min long, and I alternated between generate, rest, and suppress trials. Kamiya (1968) employed a similar procedure of alternating between 5-min long enhancement and suppression periods. Kamiya's 1969 procedure was even more like mine: He gave his subjects alternating blocks of 2J-min long enhance, rest, and suppress trials. To summarize so far, it appears that, relevant to Hardt and Kamiya's criticisms, my methodology was at least as effective as that which was employed by the four studies that discovered the very phenomenon under investigation. Hence we can see that it is certainly not the case that I "designed the feedback training in such a way as to minimize the chances of seeing what [I] did not expect" (p. 102), as Hardt and Kamiya propose. Moreover, there are at least two aspects of my methodology that make it clearly superior to those employed in three of the classic studies (Kamiya, 1968, 1969; Nowlis & Kamiya, 1970). I employed an integrated amplitude measure of alpha strength and a proportional feedback signal, whereas these other studies used a percent time measure of alpha abundance and a binary feedback signal. Travis,

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON" Kondo, and Knott (1974) offer data supporting the superiority of the former method, and even Hardt and Kamiya (1975) recommend amplitude integration over the percent time technique. With the above considerations in mind, it is clear that Hardt and Kamiya's criticisms of my work implicate an even greater criticism of Kamiya's own earlier work, as well as Brown's, which are the very empirical "foundations" of the alpha phenomenon. Thus, if my methodology was too "deficient" to produce "positive achievement at alpha enhancement," then certainly this is also the case for these earlier works. On the other hand, if Hardt and Kamiya's criticisms of my methodology are as incorrect as they are unsupported by data, then my research was an adequate test of the phenomenon. Thus, either way, my research has at least demonstrated that the claims of these classic studies—that it was alpha enhancement per se that led to the achievement of alpha experiences—are not accurate. Furthermore, my study necessitates our searching for a new explication of the results of the previous alpha research. The explication that I have offered (Plotkin, 1976; Plotkin & Cohen, in press; Plotkin, Mazer, & Loewy, Note 1) is essentially the same as that offered by several other researchers (Beatty, 1972; Grynal & Jamieson, 1975; Lynch & Paskewitz, 1971; Lynch, Paskewitz, & Orne, 1974; Peper, 1971; Walsh, 1974): The experiences that occur during alpha training may be primarily due to such related variables as suggestion, expectation, initial bias, or the demand characteristics of the experimental setting, as well as to the personal characteristics of those persons who engage in such training. We must conclude that Hardt and Kamiya must also now explain the results of the classic alpha studies in terms of such variables as suggestion or persuasion. This state of affairs is particularly ironic in light of one of Kamiya's (1968) conclusions from his earlier alpha research: Perhaps our increasing concern over control of the individual by psychological persuasion could be diminished. People with full control of their

111

internal states might be better prepared to resist external control, (p. 60)

There are quite a few research reports that have failed to replicate the alpha phenomenon —both the conclusions of alpha enhancement above optimal baselines, and of reliably associated subjective states (e.g., Beatty, 1972; Lynch et al., 1974; Orne & Paskewitz, 1974; Peper, 1971; Plotkin, 1976; Plotkin & Cohen, in press; Regestein, Pegram, Cook, & Bradley, 1974; Plotkin et al., Note 1). Moreover, I have been unable to find any well-controlled research that has replicated the phenomena. The only such works that Hardt and Kamiya refer to are four of their own papers (Hardt, 1974, Note 2, Note 3; Hardt & Kamiya, Note 4), none of which are as yet published or generally available. If they ever do become available, if they do claim that they have shown alpha enhancement significantly above eyes-closed resting levels, and if they do claim that the alpha experience is reliably and intrinsically associated with these higher alpha levels, we will have to ask the following two crucial questions about their research : (a) Were adequate procedures used to demonstrate actual increases above optimal eyes-closed levels, and (b) were the necessary experimental controls adequately employed to determine to what degree the reports of alpha experiences were explanable in terms of the aspects of the feedback situation other than alpha levels per se. Unless we are able to confidently answer yes to both these questions, Hardt and Kamiya's recent work will not further our understanding of the alpha phenomenon. Let us now consider the recent research relevant to the above two questions. First I will review the literature relevant to the question of whether or not alpha can be enhanced significantly above optimal eyesclosed baselines. Lynch and Paskewitz (1971), in a review of the literature up to that time, concluded that the alpha densities which can occur in the feedback situation may approach those seen in that same individual under optimal baseline conditions, but will not significantly exceed them. (p. 213)

112

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

These authors hypothesize that feedback will allow persons to increase their alpha levels only in circumstances that cause an initial decrease below optimal baselines (i.e., "adaptation and habituation"). Podlesny and Raskin (1974) gave two of their subjects 120 min of enhancement feedback .(with eyes closed) over six sessions. They found that training did not produce alpha densities or alpha durations greater than eyes-closed resting levels. Travis et al. (1974), although giving their subjects only 50 min of enhancement feedback with eyes closed, found that those persons who received proportional feedback increased their integrated alpha levels above initial baselines. However these increases above baseline were very small and seemed to level off after 20 min. Moreover, the prefeedback baseline period was only 2 min long, which may very well be too short to obtain an accurate baseline index, since initial baselines will often rise spontaneously for several minutes. Paskewitz and Orne (1973) reported that with eyes open in a totally dark room, their participants approached asymptotic density within 2 min without any feedback. Furthermore, with 150 min of enhancement feedback (over six sessions), these persons never reached their preexperimental eyesclosed baseline levels (averaged over a 3min period). However, we should note that Paskewitz and Orne used a percent time measure, which is not as sensitive or effective as integrated amplitude, as discussed above. Finally, Regestein et al. (1974), also using a percent time measure, found no striking increases in alpha density over 4and 12-hr sessions of continuous enhancement feedback with eyes closed. Moreover, their research participants, who were paid for successful alpha production, found the experience to be generally "boring." Although these few reports suggest that even extended training with eyes closed does not lead to significant'increases above eyesclosed baselines, none of them may, in fact, constitute an adequate test since none employed an integrated amplitude measure with long training. Hence, we must conclude that, relative to Hardt and Kamiya's com-

mentary, there are absolutely no published studies in the literature (including the four classic studies) that have adequately tested the possibility of "positive achievement at alpha enhancement." Thus, it is possible that longer training (with eyes closed, an integrated amplitude measure, and proportional feedback) will result in the enhancement of alpha strength above eyes-closed baselines, although it should be remembered that such a demonstration would constitute a different finding than that previously reported as the alpha phenomenon. However, even if this is the case, researchers will have to be most careful in obtaining and interpreting their participants' subjective associations. For, as we have seen, Hardt and Kamiya must now account for the occurrence of alpha experiences in all previous studies to be due to variables other than "positive achievement at alpha enhancement," which they now hold could not have been achieved with the inadequate methodologies that all previous studies have employed. And since these situational variables were so potent in the past, it is clearly mandatory that their effects are carefully controlled for in the future. There appear to be several aspects of the feedback situation that could very well account for most or all aspects of the subjective experiences reported to be associated with alpha. Chief among these are (a) suggestion and expectation, (b) the sensorydeprivation qualities of the feedback circumstances, and (c) the experience of success at the feedback task. Let us consider these individually. It is well known that suggestion or expectation has a very powerful influence on the often unusual experiences associated with hypnosis and psychedelic drugs, as well as on all sorts of more common experiences. I have already listed the many papers whose authors have hypothesized that suggestion and expectation—explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious—are likely to play important roles in the development of alpha experiences during alpha feedback training. Walsh (1974) and Plotkin (1976) have offered evidence to this effect.

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON" Moreover, several studies (Orne & Paskewitz, 1974; Peper & Mulholland, 1970; Plotkin & Cohen, in press; Travis, Kondo, & Knott, Note 5; Yock, Note 6), which have minimized implicit or explicit suggestion, have failed to find a reliable association between enhanced alpha and the alpha experience, although Hardt and Kamiya would argue that this is due to inadequate training procedures. Another significant characteristic of the typical feedback situation (and of the one that Hardt and Kamiya strongly recommend) is the way in which it resembles a sensory-deprivation experiment. Trainees are usually asked to sit in a comfortable chair, or to lie on a bed, which is typically situated in a soundproof room with low lighting or none at all. Moreover, trainees are often asked to close their eyes, relax, and not to move around (in order not to disturb the electrodes). On top of all of this, the standard feedback signal is a monotonous tone, often appearing over a headphone set, which the trainee is constantly monitoring in order to track his changing alpha levels. This last feature also reminds us very much of many meditation techniques, in which the meditator focuses or limits his attention to a monotonous, repetitive process, or to an unchanging object, such as one's breathing, a mantra, chanting, or a mandala. Considering these aspects of the typical feedback situation, we would be surprised if the trainee did not report that he was relaxed, and we would certainly have no grounds for amazement if we heard reports, similar to sensory-deprivation effects, of loss of body awareness and the associated feelings of lightness, floating, or space, to say nothing of "loosing awareness of the external environment." However, as with sensory deprivation, some persons may react to this feedback situation with anxiety or panic. This is supported by the reports of a few of my research participants who felt that high alpha was associated with anxiety (Plotkin, 1976), and by Orne and Paskewitz's (1974) observation that their subjects' feedback-enhanced alpha levels did not decrease during periods of reported

113

anxiety and heightened arousal produced by the anticipation of electric shock. Finally, let us consider the possible effects of the experience of success at the feedback task. This factor could be helpful in explaining the pleasant affect and enthusiasm of the subjective reports. For many persons, the self-control of an "involuntary" bodily process, especially one as mysterious and vital as brain wave activity, is certainly not an ability that is thought to be trivial or easily learned. Hence, the acquisition of such a skill can be justifiable cause for feelings of unusual self-mastery and the accompanying positive affect and elation. Lynch et al. (1974) report that their subjects' "positive subjective reactions to the feedback procedures" were most likely due to "the fact that subjects were told that the experience would be a pleasant one, and all subjects had some degree of success in increasing the amount of feedback they received" (p. 408). We may also note in this context that the "placebo" characteristics of successful feedback training may very well be significantly more powerful than those of drug placebos. A trainee would be expected to become much more involved in—and thereby influenced by—changes that he can see himself as having produced than by changes that he attributes to drug effects (even though he is also, in fact, the agent of change in the latter case when the drug is an inactive placebo). Thus, we would expect the experience of success in electroencephalogram (EEG) feedback training to greatly amplify the effects of any suggestions or expectations that may already be active. Having considered the above three categories of variables, we are now in a better position to critically appraise the assertion, by Hardt and Kamiya or others, that the alpha experience is reliably and intrinsically associated with enhanced alpha levels per se produced by longer training with eyes closed. First, let us be clear that this assertion may, in fact, be correct. However, we can now understand that any alleged demonstration to that effect would be meaningless if it did not adequately control for the effects of these other variables, especially when we

114

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

consider that all three of these variables sion or eye movements were very rarely would be expected to increase in potency seen, but on the few occassions on which with the increases in training length that they were observed the graphic recording Hardt and Kamiya claim to be necessary to allowed us to correct for their artifactual show "positive achievement at alpha en- effects on alpha scores, and to warn the hancement." (In fact, it is quite possible research participant to avoid muscle tenthat Hardt and Kamiya's observation of sion as a control strategy. Second, the F4 more frequent and "powerful" alpha experi- placement is evidently sufficiently far back ences with longer training will be found to on the scalp to avoid the large eye artifacts be primarily due to the increase in the that Hardt and Kamiya mentioned. power of these three variables Over longer Next, let us consider Hardt and Kamiya's training than due to increased alpha strength, comment that "by frequently interrupting if any.) the trainees (every 3 min) to change the I would like now to consider some further task, it is guaranteed that the subtle psyissues that Hardt and Kamiya have raised. choneural state of high alpha will not have First, I have three comments about their much time to develop and will probably not criticism of my electrode placement (oc- be seen" (p. 102). As is true for most of cipital-frontal), (a) Nowlis and Kamiya their assertions, Hardt and Kamiya have (1970) used the same occipital-frontal offered no data to support this claim, nor placement with half of their subjects and an the related claim that frequent baselines occipital-central placement with the other during training "serve only to distract the half. They reported that "there was no trainees." Furthermore, these claims are evidence that [the different electrode place- most puzzling in light of the data that are ments] had any influence on success at the available that show that frequently changing task" (p. 481). Moreover, they reported no the task does not guarantee the nonoccurdifferences in subjective reports when using rence of the alpha experience. These data these two placements, nor were there any are found in Kamiya's own earlier work, striking differences between this report and in which the "psychoneural state of high that of Kamiya's (1969) study, which used alpha" was first reported. As we saw an "occipital to earlobe" placement, (b) earlier, Kamiya (1968, 1969) altered the Other researchers have used other place- experimental task in nearly the same ments (e.g., Oz-ear, Or-O2) but no one way that I did. Moreover, I could argue has reported any differences in results, rele- that giving the trainee an opportunity to vant to the type of research considered alternately practice alpha enhancement and here, which hinges on electrode placement suppression with interspersed rest periods as long as at least one of the two active leads more quickly to "effective" alpha enelectrodes is over the occiput, (c) Hardt hancement than enhancement training alone, and Kamiya's comment that "the use of a since the trainee learns the nature of the frontal site (near the eyes) considerably in- control process quicker and more thoroughly creases the oculomotor disruption of any when he understands the dynamics of suprecorded alpha activity" (p. 100) is not rele- pression as well as enhancement. Furthervant to my research for two reasons. First, although I did not mention it in the ap- more, rest periods supply the opportunity paratus section due to a shortage of space, for the trainee to contemplate his degree of I did at all times monitor the unfiltered success and strategies up to that point, and EEC by means of a Grass EEC amplifier to "regroup" while not under the pressure (Model 7P511) and strip chart recorder. to perform. Although this argument seems In addition, the input to the digital quantifier to be at least as compelling as Hardt and (from the AT-1) was recorded (in blips) Kamiya's, it would clearly be inappropriate on the Grass channel directly beneath the to state it as an implicitly proven finding EEG recording. Artifacts from muscle ten- until the relevant data are available.

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON"

Third, Hardt and Kamiya criticized my baseline-measuring procedure as being inappropriate since it obscured "any carry-over effects from all the previous training" (p. 103). However, a glance at the data demonstrates that this was not the case: Baseline periods remained relatively stable throughout the sessions, showing only the expected small rise (158, 159, 163, 166, 167, 164). Since the baselines showed virtually no change relative to the change across trials of the suppression and enhancement scores, it is not the case that carry-over effects were obscured. Moreover, I did not "assume" that this would be the case. As mentioned in my article, pilot work was conducted before an effective baseline-measuring procedure was decided upon. This pilot work, as well as the research itself, demonstrated that persons were able to quickly gain sufficient control over alpha to "not do it" during the baselines. Hardt and Kamiya went on to assert that my baseline procedure would not be effective if I was measuring breathing rates while "climbing up or down a 10,000-ft. mountain" (p. 103). Although this observation is undoubtedly correct, it clearly has no relevance here—turning alpha on and off is simply not a similar task to mountain climbing. Moreover, the relatively high stability of my baselines attests that I did not make unreasonable demands on the baseline situation. Once again, Hardt and Kamiya should be encouraged to first gather the necessary data before making assertions of an empirical nature. Finally, in this connection, Hardt and Kamiya have stated that I gave no reasons for the insufficiency of Kamiya's (1969) interpretation of his rising baselines. I assumed that the insufficiency would have been clear in the context of my discussion: Namely, that no data were presented which ruled out the equally obvious interpretation—that both the baseline and enhance levels were showing spontaneous increases independent of training effects per se. There is another issue related to baseline measuring that Hardt and Kamiya bring up. , They assert that if my baselines did rise, my success scores would underestimate en-

115

hancement and overestimate suppression. On the other hand, if they did not change much, "this could be taken as evidence that the trainees are not really 'getting into' the really powerful enhancement experience, which spills over into the baselines if it is effectively evoked" (p. 105). Thus, with no adequate data in hand, Hardt and Kamiya are asserting that, regardless of my results, my methodology must have been inappropriate. However, there is no evidence that alpha enhancement must "spill over into the baselines" or even that it usually does. Moreover, those persons in my feedback groups who reported experiences most like the alpha experience did not show baselines rising any faster than the average, nor were their baselines following enhance trials any higher, on the average, than their baselines following suppress trials. Fourth, Hardt and Kamiya have criticized my success scores for allegedly obscuring "the 'recovery' aspects of the training by eliminating absolute magnitudes of .alpha activity" (p. 102). By "recovery aspects," they refer to the recovery up to eyes-closed resting levels from the initial depression caused by opened eyes, lights, or other factors. I have two comments: (a) As we have seen above, there are absolutely no published studies that report alpha enhancement significantly beyond these "recovery" levels. Hence it is a rather empty criticism that I may have obscured an effect that always occurs, (b) There are, as yet, no widely agreed upon ways of measuring optimal eyes-closed baselines, and thus no agreed upon ways of measuring (or obscuring) "recovery" effects. A final "methodological deficiency" that Hardt and Kamiya find in my study is my failure to measure the "ego strength" of my trainees. Due to this oversight on my part, Hardt and Kamiya caution us that my trainees "might have been derived primarily from the low-ego strength group, which is inherently less adept at alpha control" (p. 104). With this criticism, Hardt and Kamiya reach new heights of post hoc speculation. Clearly, the burden of proof rests squarely on Hardt and Kamiya's

116

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

shoulders when they make this and their numerous other unsupported criticisms. Moreover, it does not appear that my research participants were any less successful at alpha enhancement than anyone else's. As reported in my article, 46% of my feedback trainees were successful in enhancing their alpha strength significantly above their baseline levels with the lights off. I know of no study that has shown greater success at enhancement than this under lights-off conditions. Hardt and Kamiya repeatedly overlook this fact in their references to my "ineffective," "deficient," and "less than optimal" methodology. In their commentary, Hardt and Kamiya remark in two places that I have missed an alternative interpretation of my percent discrimination scores in my Figure 2. They note that with lights off, the feedback-Cognitive instruction group did better than the feedback-Oculomotor instruction group, and that the no feedback-Cognitive instruction group scored higher than the no feedbackOculomotor instruction group. However, if we glance at this figure we can see that the differences between these two pairs of groups are extremely small, and given the relative size of the other clearly marked insignificant differences on this figure, I find it hard to understand how anyone would want to offer an interpretation of differences of such magnitudes. Two post hoc comparisons show that Hardt and Kamiya have based their "alternative interpretations" on an F of .188 (df = 1, 16, p > .6) and on an F of .057 (df - 1, 16, p > .8), respectively. To summarize so far, although alpha levels significantly beyond optimal eyesclosed baselines may be possible, no one has yet demonstrated them. Moreover, based on the available data, we must conclude that Hardt and Kamiya have not demonstrated that my methodology was "deficient" from the point of view of the trainee, the obtained enhancement scores, the previous research, or general methodological considerations. In addition, we have seen that, even if higher alpha levels can be achieved with longer training, carefully controlled research will be necessary to demonstrate that the alpha

experience is in any way intrinsically associated with enhanced alpha per se. I would like now to consider a few remaining points that Hardt and Kamiya have raised about my design and conclusions. Toward the beginning of their commentary, Hardt and Kamiya demonstrate some confusion about the nature and significance of the two control strategies that I investigated—the Oculomotor and Cognitive strategies. To their understanding, the Oculomotor strategy "does not imply any necessary behavioral or psychological strategies" (p. 101>). Rather, they think it merely concerns "a hypothesis about how training of alpha control is made possible physiologically" (p. 101). This is clearly a misunderstanding. First, it should be clear that all strategies, regardless of their nature, (a) have a cognitive aspect and (b) are behavioral (i.e., not merely physiological). This is simply a logical reminder that to speak of a "strategy" is to say that certain distinctions are being made and acted upon (even if unknowingly) ; therefore, all strategies have a cognitive aspect and are behavioral, since to use the term cognitive is usually to speak of the act of making distinctions or of the aspect of behavior that involves distinction making. Thus, to say that a given strategy is not cognitive is tantamount to saying that it is not, in fact, a strategy at all. It is for this reason that it was unfortunate that I chose Cognitive for the label of one of the strategies since it may have implied to some that the other (Oculomotor) strategy did not have a cognitive aspect (or that it was not behavioral). The Oculomotor strategy is, of course, behavioral and it does have a cognitive aspect —namely, the trainee distinguishes the effects on the feedback signal of different sorts of changes in his or her "looking" behavior. Moreover, the Oculomotor strategy also has a physiological (or visible performance) aspect—namely, that changes in the oculomotor system have been shown to be concomitant with occipital alpha changes and alterations in looking behavior. (Hence, we can see that it is certainly not my belief that "if it is physiological, no cognitive

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON" processes could be involved" (p. 101), as Hardt and Kamiya fear). The Cognitive strategy was given that label simply because it does not have a visible physiological aspect (other than occipital alpha itself), and thus is more "purely" cognitive. However, I acknowledge the confusion that I may have generated with this choice of language. Second, Hardt and Kamiya's comments express a related misunderstanding of Mulholland and Peper's work on occipital alpha and the oculomotor system (e.g., Mulholland, 1968; Mulholland & Peper, 1971). They imply that by having based parts of my experimental design and conclusions on the work of Mulholland and Peper, I did not stay on the behavioral level. However Mulholland and Peper's work (as reviewed in my article) does primarily involve the behavioral level. The major paradigm they employed in this aspect of their work was to ask their research participants to engage in various forms of looking behavior, such as focused or blurred tracking, while they recorded changes in the occipital alpha rhythm. Their results demonstrate reliable and systematic correlations between consciously initiated visual control processes and occipital alpha densities. This research directly demonstrates the effectiveness of the Oculomotor strategy of alpha control on the behavioral level. However, it is precisely because one cannot conclude from this research that the Oculomotor strategy is the only effective control strategy, that studies of the kind I conducted are necessary. However, the results of my study demonstrated that (a) the Cognitive strategy that I studied was not effective for most persons, but that (b) there was a different "cognitive" strategy (involving the degree of sensory awareness) that was effective for nearly all persons, and (c) this latter strategy is not independent of the Oculomotor strategy, as shown by the fact that those persons who employed this strategy were handicapped to the same degree by the same conditions tha* handicapped the persons employing the Oculomotor strategy (i.e., no lights). Moreover, given that the same changes in looking

117

behavior that constitute the Oculomotor Strategy also occur (incidentally) during exercise of this "cognitive" strategy, it is a reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis that the same physiological processes occur during both strategies. In addition, a search of the literature concerning the occipital alpha rhythm does not reveal any experiment in which oculomotor functions have been excluded as a cause of alpha strength changes. It is in this connection that Hardt and Kamiya have misunderstood the significance of the findings of Chapman, Cavonius, and Ernest (1971), who reported normal alpha activity in eyeless subjects. A reading of the research on occipital alpha and the oculomotor system (e.g., Mulholland, 1968, 1973; Peper, 1971; Wertheim, 1974) makes it clear that it is not hypothesized that occipital alpha blocking is caused by—or directly indicates—peripheral oculomotor activity (i.e., activation of the muscles in and around the eye), but rather that it indicates central (cortical) oculomotor processing (i.e., the neural efferent activity involved in oculomotor activation.) For example, Mulholland (1973) hypothesized that it is "both efferent visual control processes and afferent processes and their integration occurring in the cortex [that] are involved in the suppression of alpha" (p. 140). Chapman et al.'s research was designed to refute charges that occipital alpha activity was an artifact related to eye activity per se. It was not a disproof of the association between occipital alpha and oculomotor processing in the cortex. Thus, although the peripheral physiology (i.e., the eyeball and extraocular muscles) is most useful in studying the oculomotor system, this physiology is not hypothesized to be the site or source of alpha blocking. Moreover, the finding of alpha blocking in eyeless subjects to "hard" mental tasks is precisely what we would expect. This is the same phenomenon seen in normals, and has been explained as a function of cortical oculomotor activation as a normal component of the well-known orienting response (Mulholland, 1968; Wertheim, 1974; Zickmund, 1969). This continued oculomotor efference in eyeless

118

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

persons may be to some extent analogous to the "phantom limb" phenomenon in amputees. At another point, Hardt and Kamiya attempt to refute the Oculomotor hypothesis by claiming that subjects' emphasis on visual mechanisms for alpha enhancement is typical only of the "early phases of training." However, this finding is quite consistent with the oculomotor hypothesis. It would be expected that trainees would no longer mention visual strategies after a little enhancement training simply because "looking" is what they are not doing, and hence it is natural that they would instead report what they are doing (e.g., daydreaming, becoming anxious, meditating, problem solving, being bored), even though the significance of what they are doing, relative to alpha enhancement, may only be that they are not "looking." This line of reasoning may also explain why reports of visual strategies persist in alpha suppression: In this case, "looking" is what the trainee is doing. In this connection, we can see that the strategy reports of alpha-enhancement trainees may merely tell us what kind of nonsensory state different kinds of persons are most disposed to enter while reaching high degrees of oculomotor inactivity in the context of feedback training. It is important to note, however, that the phenomenological authenticity of the alpha experience is in no way being called into question here. The question is whether or not alpha enhancement per se is at all instrumental in—or intrinsic to—the achievement of this experience. Moreover, it is not the case that I do "not believe that there is a relationship between alpha activity and . . . 'the alpha experience' " (pp. 103-104), as Hardt and Kamiya claim. What I have repeatedly suggested is that there is no intrinsic or direct relationship between the two. They are associated in the sense that the "alpha experience" is one instance of a very wide range of states that, as a class, are reliably accompanied by enhanced alpha. Hardt and Kamiya thought it "quite bold" of me to suggest that there was no evidence that somatic processes other than oculo-

motor functions serve as mediators of the self-control of occipital alpha. They then listed a few studies that seemed to them to offer such evidence. However, the finding that some somatic processes sometimes change concomitant with alpha changes does not imply that these processes necessarily do—or even can—serve as mediators of alpha control. The first step of such a demonstration of mediation is to show that these processes change while a person is controlling alpha. The available research, reviewed in my article, shows negative findings whenever such investigations have been conducted. Concerning the connection between arousal level and alpha activity, Hardt and Kamiya have once more demonstrated their unfamiliarity with the recent research, for they have deemed it necessary "to complete [my] partial view of the influence of arousal . . . on alpha" (p. 106) by referring to the very theory (Lindsley, 1956; Malmo, 1959) that I sought to amend based on more recent, conflicting evidence (e.g., Mulholland, 1968; 1973; Orne & Paskewitz, 1974). The earlier theory claimed that high alpha is seen only at an intermediate arousal level. Although this is often the case, more recent research (e.g., Mulholland, 1968, 1973) has suggested that the desynchronization of occipital alpha that is thought to be intrinsically associated with "hyperarousal" is in fact a function of the cortical oculomotor activity that often occurs along with heightened arousal. However, when oculomotor activation does not accompany hyperarousal, neither does EEG desynchronization. Orne and Paskewitz (1974) have recently found, for example, that anticipation of electric shock did not depress alpha activity in a feedback situation though it was associated with reported anxiety and heightened arousal indexed by greatly increased heart rate and number of spontaneous skin conductance responses, (p. 458).

As for the utility of alpha biofeedback, this cannot be determined through "formal studies of meditators with . . . biofeedback," as Hardt and Kamiya suggest. If a meditator enhances alpha and/ or achieves a medi-

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON" tative state while meditating during alpha feedback, we have learned nothing about the potential effects of feedback-augmented alpha levels per se, nor anything about the intrinsic subjective correlates of enhanced alpha, since the meditation and biofeedback variables are totally confounded. The mere fact that both meditators and neophyte feedback trainees may increase their alpha strength tells us nothing else about the potential similarities of the two activities. It would be most instructive, in fact, to ask a meditator to enhance alpha (with feedback) without entering a meditative state. Moreover, it appears that the connection between meditation and enhanced alpha levels may not be very robust, in the first place. Travis, Kondo, and Knott (1975) have recently found that the occipital alpha production of Transcendental Meditators did not change significantly during their meditation, and did not increase over premeditation baselines, as previously reported by Wallace (1970). My recommendation against using alpha feedback as a meditation technique was based on my finding that enhanced alpha levels per se were not reliably or intrinsically associated with a meditative state. If adequately controlled studies of longer training, which we are now conducting, reach the same conclusion, then I would maintain my recommendation despite Hardt and Kamiya's reminder that "all methods can be a trap," simply because it will then have been verified that alpha enhancement per se is not a method at all. On the other hand, if these studies do show the hypothesized association between alpha and meditation, then alpha feedback would, of course, be useful for certain persons. However, in this case, the utility of alpha feedback would be in the behaviors that the trainee learns he must engage in in order to alter the feedback signal in the desired manner, and not in the mere fact of enhanced alpha strength. Moreover, there would be, in any case, a significant difference between the "methods" of meditation and alpha feedback: in the former case, there are no external aids.

119

Finally, I would like to make a few brief remarks about a basic assumption that underlies the attempt to "map" subjective states with the EEG and other physiological measures. Implicit in this endeavor, for many researchers, is a Cartesian mind-body dualism (Grossberg, 1972), in which physiological, and especially neurophysiological, states of affairs are thought to be identical with—or the cause of—behaviors, experiences, or states of consciousness. This logical error, explicated by Ossorio (1974), Ryle (1949), and Wittgenstein (1958) often results in the use of confusing and misleading phrases such as "psychoneural state" or "psychophysiological signals of calmness and enhanced alpha activity," as found in Hardt and Kamiya's commentary. In another paper (Plotkin & Schwartz, Note 7), we explore in more detail in what ways the notion that physiological states are formally equivalent to states of awareness constitutes a serious logical impediment to the understanding of persons, behavior, and consciousness. In conclusion, considering the available data, it is at best questionable at this point that "technologically given feedback can show people the possibilities of meditation" (p. 107) or that there is a "formal equivalence of the tasks of the Yogi and the biofeedback trainee" (p. 107), as Hardt and Kamiya conclude. What the scientific community requires now is responsible research rather than exorbitant claims and enthusiastic speculation. REFERENCE NOTES 1. Plotkin, W. B., Mazer, C., & Loewy, D. The likelihood of an "alpha experience"; Unrelated to occipital alpha enhancement. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1976. 2. Hardt, J. V. Discussant: EEG alpha learning— state of the art. Paper presented at the meeting of the Biofeedback Research Society, Monterey, Calif., February 1975. 3. Hardt, J. V. The ups and downs of learning alpha feedback. Proceedings of the Biofeedback Research Society, Monterey, Calif., February 1975, 118. 4. Hardt, J. V., & Kamiya, J. The ups and downs of learning alpha feedback, part 2: Differential early/late correlations' with drug use, sleep records, and mood scales. Paper to,

WILLIAM B. PLOTKIN

120

be presented at the meeting of the Biofeedback Research Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., March 1976. 5. Travis, T. A., Kondo, C. Y., & Knott, J. R. Subjective reports following feedback training of the occipital alpha rhythm. Proceedings of the Biofeedback Research Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., February 1974, 79. (Abstract) 6. Yock, T. J. Relaxation and occipital alpha. Proceedings of the Biofeedback Research Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., February 1974, 85. (Abstract) 7. Plotkin, W. B., & Schwartz, W. R. An explication of altered states of consciousness and hypnosis. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1976. Reprints may be obtained from first author.

REFERENCES Beatty, J. Similar effects of feedback signals and instructional information on EEG activity. Physiology and Behavior, .1972, °, 151-154. Brown, B. Recognition of aspects of consciousness through association with EEG alpha activity represented by a light signal. Psychophysiology, 1970, 6, 442-452. Brown, B. Awareness of EEG-subjective activity relationships detected within a closed feedback system. Psychophysiology, 1971, 7, 451-464. Chapman, R., Cavonius, C., & Ernest, J. Alpha and kappa electroencephalogram activity in eyeless subjects. Science, 1971, 171, 1159-1161. Grossberg, J. M. Brain wave feedback experiments and the concept of mental mechanisms. Journal of Behavior Therapy &• Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 3, 245-251. Grynal, E., & Jamieson, J. Alpha feedback and relaxation: A cautionary note. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975, 40, 58. Hardt, J. V. Alpha EEG responses of low and high anxiety males to respiration and relaxation training and to auditory feedback of occipital alpha. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35, 1912B-1913B (University Microfilms No. 74-19309) Hardt, J. V., & Kamiya, J. Conflicting results in EEG alpha feedback studies: Why amplitude integration should replace percent time. Biofeedback: Newsletter of the Biofeedback Research Society, 1975, 3, 7. (Abstract) Hardt, J. V., & Kamiya, J. Some comments on Plotkin's self-regulation of EEG alpha. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 100-108. Kamiya, J. Conscious control of brain waves. Psychology Today, 1968, 1, 57-60. Kamiya, J. Operant control of the EEG alpha rhythm and some of its reported effects on consciousness. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of consciousness. New York: Wiley, 1969.

Lindsley, D. B. Basic perceptual processes and the EEG. Psychiatric Research Reports, 1956, 6, 161-170. Lynch, J. J., & Paskewitz, D. A. On the mechanisms of the feedback control of human brain wave activity. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1971, 153, 205-217. Lynch, J. J., Paskewitz, D. A., & Orne, M. T. Some factors in the feedback control of human alpha rhythm. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1974, 36, 399-410. Malmo, R. B. Activation: A neuropsychological dimension. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 367386. Mulholland, T. B. Feedback electroencephalography. Activas Nervosa Superior, 1968, 10, 410-438. Mulholland, T. B. Objective EEG methods for studying covert shifts of visual attention. In F. J. McGuigan & R. A. Schoonover (Eds.), The Psychophysiology of thinking: Studies of covert processes. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Mulholland, T. B., & Peper, E. Occipital alpha and accomodative vergence, pursuit tracking, and fast eye movements. Psychophysiology, 1971, 8, 556-575. Nowlis, D. P., & Kamiya, J. The control of electroencephalographic alpha rhythms through auditory feedback and the associated mental activity. Psychophysiology, 1970, 6, 476-484. Orne, M. T., & Paskewitz, D. A. Aversive situational effects on alpha feedback training. Science, 1974, 186, 458-460. Ossorio, P. G. What actually happens. Boulder, Colo.: Linguistic Research Institute, 1974. Paskewitz, D. A., & Orne, M. T. Visual effects during alpha feedback training. Science, 1973, 181, 361-363. Peper, E. Reduction of efferent motor commands during alpha feedback as a facilitator of EEG alpha and a precondition for changes in consciousness. Kybernetik, 1971, 9, 226-231. Peper, E., & Mulholland, M. T. Methodological and theoretical problems in the voluntary control of electroencephalographic occipital alpha by the subject. Kybernetik, 1970, 7, 10-13. Plotkin, W. B. On the self-regulation of the occipital alpha rhythm: Control strategies, states of consciousness, and the role of physiological feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 66-99. Plotkin, W. B., & Cohen, R. Occipital alpha and the "alpha experience." Psychophysiology, in press. Podlesny, J. A., & Raskin, D. C. Biofeedback: A failure to enhance alpha EEG, Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 227-228. (Abstract) Regestein, Q. R., Pegram, V., Cook, B., & Bradley, D. Alpha rhythm percentage maintained during 4- and 12-hour feedback periods. In N. E. Miller, T. X. Barber, L. V. DiCara,

APPRAISING THE EPHEMERAL "ALPHA PHENOMENON" J. Kamiya, D. Shapiro, & J. Stoyva (Eds.), Biofeedback and Self-Control, 1973. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1974. Ryle, G. The concept oj mind. London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1949. Travis, T. A., Kondo, C. Y., & Knott, J. R. Parameters of eyes-closed alpha enhancement. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 674-681. Travis, T. A., Kondo, C. Y., & Knott, J. R. Heart rate, muscle tension, and alpha production of Transcendental Meditators and controls. Biofeedback: Newsletter of the Biofeedback Research Society, 197S, 3, 13. (Abstract) Wallace, R. K. Physiological effects of transcendental meditation. Science, 1970, 167, 17511754.

121

Walsh, D. H. Interactive effects of alpha feedback and instructional set on subjective state. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 428-435. Wertheim, A. H. Oculomotor control and occipital alpha activity: A review and a hypothesis. Acta Psychologies, 1974, 38, 235-256. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1958. Zickmund, V. The time course of the oculomotor component of orienting reaction. In C. R. Evans & T. B. Mulholland (Eds.), Attention in neurophysiology. London: Butterworths, 1969. (Received November 4, 1975)