Comparative efficacy of neurofeedback and traditional mindfulness meditation on undergraduates' stress and mindfulness: A randomized controlled trial.

An 8-week randomized controlled trial compared neurofeedback-assisted meditation with traditional guided meditation and a passive control group among 137 undergraduates. At a single post-intervention assessment, no statistically significant differences emerged between the three groups on mindfulness or perceived stress scores. The findings suggest that neither active intervention produced meaningful group differences, and consumer-grade neurofeedback offered no measurable advantage over traditional guided meditation, despite high acceptability among participants who used it.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated the comparative efficacy of two active mindfulness interventions, neurofeedback-assisted meditation and traditional guided meditation. A total of 137 undergraduates were recruited and randomly assigned to one of three, 8-week conditions: neurofeedback meditation (n = 51), traditional meditation (n = 46), or a passive control group (n = 40). Participants completed a single post-intervention assessment to measure mindfulness (MAAS) and perceived stress (PSS-10). Qualitative data (n = 21) were also collected from the neurofeedback group to determine acceptability. One-Way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences between the three groups on post-intervention mindfulness scores, F(2, 134) = 0.423, p = 0.656 or for perceived stress scores F(2, 134) = 0.269, p = 0.765. These findings suggest that the 8-week intervention, regardless of the method, was ineffective in producing statistically meaningful group differences. While acceptability was high, the inclusion of consumer-grade neurofeedback provided no measurable advantage over traditional guided meditation.