The ground-breaking Scott/Peniston Study has become the benchmark in addiction research:

“Roger deBeus reports on a pilot study comparing QEEG-guided neurofeedback with Scott/Peniston-protocol neurofeedback, using a sample of substance abusers. This preliminary research demonstrated that both neurofeedback groups showed significantly more improvement on several measures than did the wait-list controls, who received only standard substance abuse treatment. This study once again confirms the effectiveness of neurofeedback for substance abuse disorders, although the study was not able to resolve the continued question about any advantage of one neurofeedback protocol over another.”
– Donald Mos, PhD, Biofeedback, Volume 35, Issue 0, pp.113-114

Pilot studies tend to be small and the deBeus study was no exception: QEEG Group n=7, Scott/Peniston Group n=6, Control Group n=6. In small studies it is very difficult to normalize the variables, for example, there was a 9% variance in the size of the groups. In addition,deBeus admits in his report that, “The primary hypothesis for this study was that QEEG-guided neurofeedback would result in more improvements in personality functioning than the Scott/Peniston protocol.” In conclusion, deBeus concedes that,”it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding any advantage regarding QEEG versus Scott/Peniston-specific training”.

Why are the Scott/Peniston protocols. significant?:

  • They are the only protocols proven effective in a large randomized controlled trial.
  • The study was conducted by a reputable university and published in a distinguished journal.
  • Symptom-based protocols are much more cost effective to implement than other EEG biofeedback methodologies.
  • Scott/Peniston is the only methodology that uses alpha-theta feedback, a necessary protocol for the addicted population.