Neal Miller

100 Year Anniversary

You are currently browsing the All site material category.

What Should CBT practitioners learn from The Psychoanalyst Paul Wachtel or The concept of Exposure to Emotions as a development in CBT and as a potential bridge to an integrative model

An abstract of a paper submitted to the 2013 EABCT conference

In this paper we will review the extensive work done by Paul Wachtel,

A prominent psychoanalyst of the Intersubjective School. Wachtel, PhD, is CUNY Distinguished Professor in the doctoral program in clinical psychology at City College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has been a leading voice for integrative thinking in the human sciences and was a cofounder of the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration.

During his extensive exposure to various schools of psychotherapy,

Wachtel identifies an accusatory, all- knowing stance that the therapist may adopt, both in some classical dynamic approaches and in some stages of the CBT process. Wachtel suggests refraining from a stance such as this in favor of adopting a more flexible, humble position.  To establish a better connection with the patient and enhance the results of therapy, Wachtel suggests focusing on emotional aspects. Wachtel claims that the experiential nature of a session conducted within the framework of a behavioral approach, which is what he liked the most as a problem was not just discussed but also “met”, was lost when the emphasis shifted to cognitions alone. Wachtel proposes that anxiety arises not only via external stimuli, but from fear of fully encountering our own diverse range of emotions. In accordance, he suggests that exposure techniques be used to expose the patient to the emotions that evoke anxiety so they can learn to cope with them and contain them more effectively.

Wachtel’s position is on par with Barlow and his unified protocol, whilst simultaneously remaining true to the core of psychoanalytic work.

Our paper will include vignettes’ from clinical work as conducted in Rolnick’s clinic

Posted 7 years, 10 months ago.

Add a comment

In Memoriam – Hershel Toomim

While originally, this site was dedicated to Neal Miller, I thought that it is very much appropriate to reserve here some space to other biofeedback leaders who passed away.

In some countries there is a burial place where all the leaders of a nations are buried.

Sometimes the site is named after a specific leader, yet  this is grave site allocated for all the  leaders of the state – Presidents and Prime Ministers

I suggest that this site will be similarly named after Neal Miller – but it will be a place to remember other leaders in neuroscience, psychotherapy, behavioral medicine and biofeedback

Hershel Toomim


Hershel Toomim passed away at 4 am Tuesday  July 19, 2011.
He was in Hospice in Jacksonville, Florida.
Hershel had just turned 95 on June 19, 2011.

A recent article (by Dave Siever) in Biofeedback (Volume 36, Issue 2, pp. 74-8) describes the full history of this great inventor.

I choose to share with the readers of this site a short poem-like that Hershel shared with me and allowed me to circulate .

Hershel Gave it the name “Who I want to be for you”

Hershel read it to a group of biofeedback practitioners in Israel in a virtual conference that was dedicated to Hemoencephalography

Being the man he is he choose to speak with us not only about his research but also about his belief and he read us this piece.

Arnon Rolnick

Who I want to be for you

I will remember that you need love as much as I do

I will give signs of love generously with praise, hugs

and passion

I will never say things to that I know will hurt you

I will speak the words of love only when I truly feel them, then I will speak freely

I will look for ways to enhance your self-esteem

I will will recognise your need to be heard and do my best to listen

I will w[ll try to understand the underlying message conveyed by your words

I will look to the underlying issues in both of us rather than look to blame

I will strive to look to imprints that you carry from childhood relationships and  take care to avoid areas where you have been wounded

I will express the needs I expect to be essential to you and not expect you to read my mind

I understand that you cannot understand all my needs perfectly

I will find alternatives that will not damage our relationship when you cannot meet my needs

I will carefully consider whether the gifts I choose to give are those you truly want

I will make sure any criticism is given in private in a way that will not shame you

I will choose my battles carefully evaluating which issues are so important tome that they are not negotiable

I will support you in pursuit of your interests and will encourage your curiosity and zest for lifemake sure

I will respond to your desires sexually as I as I wish you you to respond to mine

I will remind myself to magnify your positive qualities and use selective inattention for your negative ones

I will work at being the right partner for you

I will commit to working on this relationship

I will be generous with forgiveness

Posted 9 years, 8 months ago.

Add a comment

Should biofeedback therapists blush? Some thoughts on the subject of self regulation in the treatment of Blushing.

Arnon Rolnick, PhD

This post deals with a question which is on one hand focused on specific symptom, but on the other hand is very much central to our concepts about control and the ability to let go.

While I was working in the navy in the 1980s, I was  approached by a young girl who worked with the sailors and she asked me if I could help her reduce her tendency to blush. She was a shy young girl who blushed whenever social attention was directed towards her. At that time (1985) the reports about biofeedback and relaxation treatment for hot flushes (freeman 1996, 2003) were not yet published .

On the face of it (pun intended) blushing or redness of the face are easy to treat with biofeedback as we have a clear correlate of physiological blushing:  a cheek plethysmograph,  cheek temperature, or the use of laser doppler flowmetry. The simplest biofeedback conceptualization suggests to train people to reduce blood flow to the cheeks. How can it be then, that there is no biofeedback treatment for blushing? The Yucha and Gilbert booklet (2008) does not include blushing or fear of blushing in its efficacy studies. One might wonder whether blushing is not that important? Darwin would not agree; he wrote that blushing is the most peculiar and the most human of all expressions.

In a recent review of the proposed criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) in the DSM 5 it is suggested that ” Blushing is a hallmark physical sign of SAD and seems to be unique to

SAD”. How then, have we have not studied it? Maybe we should blush?

I believe we should indeed blush. As many of you know, the leading textbook in our field”Biofeedback: A Practioner Guide” authored by Schwartz and Andrasik, does not include a chapter on anxiety disorders (although I hope that the next edition will include such a chapter written by my group).

Might one explanation as to why there is a lack of information about biofeedback as a treatment for blushing and social anxiety disorder be that our concept is wrong? Could it be that in order to treat blushing it is better to accept  or ignore it rather than attempting to control it?  The 3rd wave generation of Cognitive Therapy suggests that CBTis too  focused on change,in opposition to acceptance. ACT is only one example of a therapeutic approach that teaches patients to observe reality without judgment or criticism, and to cease efforts that are made in the struggle against anxiety. Biofeedback can certainly assist in this particular aspect of change. Hamiel and Rolnick(in press)  recently argued that biofeedback can enhance cognitive behavior therapy in exactly this  arena.

Returning to the question of whether we should we blush? I think the case of blushing suggests that biofeedback can enhance the therapy of anxiety disorders in general, and social anxiety in particular, by being a unique tool for simulating blushing or simulating a situation where the patient feel shame for the fact that other people can see their stress. There is a strong parallel between blushing, which usually occurs only when the subject is in a social or interpersonal situationand the triadic situation where the patient is aware that the therapist sees their internal reaction, and this is a unique type of exposure that other CBT methods can not create as easily, or at all..

I would appreciate any comment about helping socially anxious subjects with biofeedback, and. also your views on whether biofeedback therapists should blush..

Posted 10 years, 1 month ago.

Add a comment

The Biofeedback Odyssey: From Neal Miller to Current and Future Models of Regulation

Nava Levit Binnun, PhD, Yulia Golland, PhD, Michael Davidovitch, MD, and Arnon Rolnick PhD, Herzelia, Israel. The following articles represent the fact that Neal Miller concepts and theory continues to influence researches all over the world. The work presented here is part of a research project of The Unit for Applied Neuroscience, Israel The Unit for Applied Neuroscience at IDC Herzliya is a research group that aims to apply recent advances in neuroscience to the solution of practical challenges in a broad range of fields, such as education and training in organizations and schools; rehabilitation of neurological patients; optimizing treatment of developmental disorders (e.g., Autism Spectrum Disorders, Attention Deficit and Hyperactive Disorders-ADHD), and creating optimal growth environments for children in general. The current article was published in Biofeedback  (the official clinical journal of the American Association for Applied Psychophysiology and biofeedback. Here is the Abstract of the Article: Neal Miller’s research on animals and humans launched the field of self-regulation, enabling individuals to take a more active role in their health and well-being. However, his inquiry into whether autonomic operant conditioning occurs remains open to debate. This article contends that present day biofeedback therapists continue to be confronted by this dilemma. Additionally, the authors suggest other models of biofeedback in which the role of the practitioner has been expanded, and to which a large repertoire of self-regulation techniques have been added. They propose that, in the future, the regulatory capacity of interpersonal interactions is recognized as in the proffered model of biofeedback, Dyadic Biofeedback (DBF). DBF allows for real-time training of interpersonal interactions emphasizing learning through direct observation and active involvement – thus making a return to Miller’s model.


Miller legacy rolnick and the idc team from Helik Shemer
View more documents from Helik Shemer.

Posted 10 years, 2 months ago.

Add a comment






We provide a brief review of Neal Miller’s translation of psychoanalytic theoretical concepts into operational behavioral research, and explore relevant interactions of clinical biofeedback and psychoanalytic practice, both now and in Miller’s time. Presently, psychoanalytic psychotherapists are more concerned with both the analyst’s and the analysand’s contribution to the “intersubjective field” of the therapeutic endeavor, than modifying biologically based,”instinctual” urges, as they were in Miller’s time.  Current psychoanalytic theory translates directly into the biofeedback therapeutic situation via the exploration of interpersonal relationship dynamics, or “intersubjective field”, which includes the patient, therapist and biofeedback instrumentation, and  figures significantly in the patient’s acquisition of a biofeedback task.




 It is well accepted that Neal Miller is the “father of Biofeedback”. Although the existence of other parental figures in the development of the field is acknowledged, Miller clearly provided a platform for the birth of the field with his experiments on autonomic conditioning (Miller & DiCara, 1967; Miller, 1969; Miller, 1978). In addition, though many readers of this publication might not be aware, Miller was also heavily involved in a field that many might consider alien in relation to biofeedback – psychoanalysis.  Miller, together with John Dollard, spent a significant portion of his career attempting to integrate learning theories with psychoanalysis. This venture began very early in his research career, when Miller decided to visit Vienna in order to undergo analysis with Freud. Unfortunately he could not afford to pay Freud so he was analyzed by Heinz Hartmann, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who is considered one of the founders and principal representatives of ego psychology. Much later, via his collaboration with John Dollard, the books Social Learning and Imitation and Personality and Psychotherapy set the stage for concentrated efforts towards an integration of psychoanalysis and learning theory.  These two publications led to the inclusion of Dollard and Miller in the now classic book on personality theories by Hall and Lindsey (1957). Furthermore, Personality and Psychotherapy had a significant influence in the field of psychotherapy, becoming central to the development of clinical psychologists for many years.


The aim herein is to discuss whether Miller’s different fields of interest can indeed be integrated. That is, is it possible that there is common ground between Psychoanalysis and Biofeedback? The venture undertaken by Miller as compared to our own reveals an interesting contrast.

Miller, in a combined effort with John Dollard, aimed to integrate behavioural and psychoanalytic concepts. Interested in the underlying theory, they translated psychological analytic concepts into behavioral terms. The aim within the present attempt at integration is somewhat different in that we have set out to show the clinical advantage of combining the psychoanalytic view of therapy with biofeedback procedures.


Miller encountereda different psychoanalysis than that which one discovers today. Psychoanalysis in the 30s, 40s and 50′s was focused on elaboration of the libidinal instinct theory, which proposed that libido, understood as an instinctual sexual drive,  generated motivation for all behavior, either directly or as a result of frustration and/or repression. Psychoanalysis in Miller’s day was believed to cure symptoms resulting from libidinal frustration, by discovering the unconscious source and thereby weakening the power of the unconscious, frustrated instinct on behavior and belief. In Miller’s view such a biologically based theory could be tested if translated into behavioral terms. 


In the present day, psychoanalysis focuses on some very different concepts. Shedler (2009) suggests the following points as representing current psychoanalysis:

  • a. Focus on affect and expression of emotion.
  • b. Exploration of attempts to avoid distressing thoughts and feelings.
  • c. Identification of recurring themes and patterns.
  • d. Discussion of past experience (developmental focus).
  • e. Focus on interpersonal relations.
  • f. Focus on the therapy relationship.
  • g. Exploration of fantasy life.

Miller attempted to integrate psychoanalysis with the behavioral concepts that were available in his time. We benefit from the fact that we can use current research and concepts, which in fact were developed by Miller. We are able to integrate psychoanalysis with biofeedback, which Miller could not do at the time simply because biofeedback was born only a decade later!

Herein, we propose to follow up on Miller’s monumental efforts, by discussing a plausible integration of current psychoanalysis and behavioral medicine/biofeedback.


Many biofeedback practitioners today see themselves connected to cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT), but not to psychoanalysis. As one of the authors wrote elsewhere (Hamiel and Rolnick, in press) the term “common law marriage” can be used figuratively to describe the relationship between biofeedback and CBT. They “live together” de facto; both are short-term goal-directed interventions that aim to maintain and reinforce their evidence-based status. Psychoanalytic concepts, at first glance, might seem somewhat incompatible with biofeedback as biofeedback concepts (in Miller’s paradigm) focus on physiology and give little attention to states of mind and mental activity during biofeedback training,  whereas psychoanalysis, for the most part, has not sufficiently considered neurophysiology (although “Neuropsychaonalysis” today is attempting to correct this).


The assertion made herein is that the psychoanalytic frame of reference can enhance biofeedback and biofeedback assisted psychotherapy. While Miller’s view of biofeedback focused primarily on learning concepts, newer models of biofeedback focus not only on the physiological data, but also on the subjective data (“What went on in your mind when your physiological reading changed?”). The intersubjective revolution in psychoanalysis, as well as our experience and training as psychodynamic psychotherapists, suggests to us that the interaction between the therapist and patient should be at the center of attention.  It is presently suggested that within a biofeedback session there occurs a replication of an early interaction between parental figure and helpless child. The specific way in which the therapist (parental figure) interacts with patients regarding their efforts to self regulate is crucial for the success of the psychophysiological psychotherapy. Hence, the current discussion follows in Neal Miller’s footsteps in that there is a similar attempt to integrate various frames of reference.



“I still remember the excitement when the idea hit me one evening that there were a number of functional similarities between Freud’s concept of repression and Pavlov’s concept of inhibition, which he believed was responsible for the experimental extinction (decline) of a conditioned response during a series of non-reinforced tries.  In both cases the underlying basis for the response was not removed but rather was suppressed by an inhibition.  This was demonstrated by the fact that, when the inhibition was removed, the response would reappear.  Furthermore both Freud’s repression and Pavlov’s inhibition had a tendency to generalize from the original stimulus to other similar ones.


“Certain stages of sleep weaken Freudian repression so that repressed tendencies can appear more readily in dreams.  Would sleep have a disinhibiting effect on an extinguished conditioned response?  The free association method plus some of the phenomena of dreams and neurotic behavior indicated that in addition to generalizing along the dimension of stimulus similarity, both the repressed tendency and the repression tended to generalize along the lines of previous or subsequent association.


 “I wrote to Freud, who encourage my general plans in his letter to me, but replied that with his health declining and so many relatives depending on him for support, he unfortunately could not give me the reduced rates that he wished could and he knew I would need.  He recommended me to one of his pupils, Heinz Hartmann, who accepted me for a didactic Analysis.  After an interview with Anna Freud the Vienna Psychoanalytic Institute admitted me for training.  The most important part was my own analysis.  This certainly was the best way to become acquainted with the power of the unconscious and the reality of some of the phenomena Freud had described. [Parenthetically, Heinz Hartmann became a preeminent American analyst and is best known for his highly organized theoretical contributions to ego psychology.]


“For example, late one afternoon I was preparing for an eagerly anticipated date with an especially attractive and sexually exciting girl I had just met and thought I had reason to believe would be glad to cooperate.  But I simply could not find anywhere on the top of my desk or elsewhere the slip of paper on which I had written her name and phone number.  I remembered all too well that in the hour that morning the analysis of a dream I had had the previous night was interpreted as revealing an unconscious fear that a date with that girl would lead to death..  Rationally deciding that such a fate was incredibly improbable, I firmly determined not to be defeated by an inhibition.  If necessary, I would systematically search every inch of the room until I found that skip of paper.  Then, I relaxed completely and to my surprise found my hand opening a drawer, fumbling in a far corner and pulling out that slip of paper!!  The date was pleasant but, perhaps because of unrealistic optimism or unconscious lingering inhibitions, my hopes were not realized.


“Another of the important gains was the acquisition of techniques for getting a better understanding of myself in certain emotional dilemmas and how to cope with them..  Although this may not have produced immediate outstanding change in my behavior, I felt that it gave me a considerably wider margin of safety in dealing with any sever stress I might encounter.”






Biofeedback can function as a potent addition to modern psychodynamic therapies in several ways. While these forms of therapy struggled in the past to achieve recognition in terms of empirical validity, they have increasingly been subjected to empirical research, with significantly positive results being gained (Milrod, Buchs & Shea, 2007; Shedler, 2009).


Classical psychodynamic approaches suggest that once conscious and unconscious fantasies and conflicts underlying anxiety disorder symptoms are identified and brought into the therapeutic dialogue, they can be better understood and thus rendered less threatening. 




Many people with stress-related psychophysiological illnesses feel insulted when their physicians make a referral to a psychiatrist/psychologist because, to them, the referral implies that their illness is not “real” and is “all in their heads.”  Indeed, such referrals are often unsuccessful (Astin, 2003).  When the referring physician is empathic with the patient’s point of view, and addresses the patient’s stress, then advertizes biofeedback as something that will help them achieve SELF-regulation, there often occurs an increase in willingness to accept such a referral, even if it is to a mental health professional.  Accordingly, Ian Wicramasekara (1988) conceptualized referral for biofeedback as a “Trojan Horse” maneuver ,which “disguises” biofeedback as a benign quasi-medical procedure that the patient can accept without narcissistic injury.  Often, after trust has developed, the patient will abandon some psychological defenses, acknowledge psychological problems/distress, and be willing to work on them. The display of physiological information provides patients with the evidence they need to connect unaware/unconscious cognitive and emotional factors that affect their symptoms.


Freud called dreams the “royal road to the unconscious.”  Perhaps, biofeedback and psychophysicological monitoring could be considered a “second royal road to the unconsciousness.”  Various case studies have demonstrated that psychophysiological measures can detect emotional reactions that are somewhat blocked from consciousness (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel & Damasio, 1997). Biofeedback assisted psychotherapy confronts patients with their physiological reactions and gently insists that any discrepancy between actual reactions and perceived feeling be reflected upon (Adler & Adler, 1989). The therapist can question the patient as to what “went on in his/her mind” when changes in the physiological reading occur. This procedure usually helps the patient identify what is bothersome and to gradually develop insight or, in psychodynamic terms, the observing ego.  In many anxious, phobic patients, the neutral observing ego has been infected by an extremely critical and self sabotaging superego which never stops berating and threatening (Wurmser, 2007).  Successfully learning a biofeedback task requires silencing, at least temporarily, these incessant thoughts.


According to Krystal (1988), patients must firstly become observers of their inner states, and next, develop affect tolerance. Given that biofeedback allows the therapist and patient to share affect observation, their frightening nature can be decreased and patients can then be taught to recognize their emotions as signals that are self-limited in duration and controllable. Once patients recognize and accept their emotions, they can begin to verbalize their emotional states with the therapist as teacher and guide, helping the patient to find the correct words to describe feelings. The therapist must be alert to nonverbal cues regarding emotional states. Doing biofeedback, the patient learns to dissociate the part of the self that observes (his observing ego) from the part of the self that experiences sensation. Acquiring this skill helps create emotional distance between the sense of self and the dysfunctional physiology (Adler & Adler, 1989)





A vital prerequisite for therapeutic efficacy is a good relationship between therapist and patient (Hardy, Cahill and Barkham, 2007). This has been demonstrated in all types of therapy  recognizing that the factor influencing whether or not thermal biofeedback learning will occur is the quality of the interaction between the experimenter/therapist and the subject/patient.  Taub called it the ‘person factor’” (Taub & School, 1978). In fact, research has demonstrated that the therapeutic alliance is by far a better predictor of therapeutic success than the use of specific techniques (Norcorss, 2002).


Initially, it may appear that the biofeedback equipment dilutes the human/personal element of therapy. In other words, the focus on a machine may produce a mechanical/technical aspect to the therapy, such that the introduction of an “inanimate therapist” into the consulting room may have a significant effect on the therapeutic relationship. Rickles (1981) and Adler and Adler (1989), noted that the transference (patient’s idiosyncratic reaction towards the therapist) might be altered as a function of the biofeedback equipment. This point is increasingly relevant today as the computer’s position within the dyad is made more substantive, given it is able to provide reliable scores and even provide vocal analysis regarding the patient’s psychological state.


Hardy, Cahill and Barkham (2007), suggest that there exist three central stages in the therapeutic relationship that require consideration and acknowledgment; a) establishing the relationship, b) developing the relationship, and c) maintenance of the relationship.


In the stage of relationship establishment, the main objectives are expectancies, intentions, motivation and hope. Biofeedback makes clear what is expected of the patient; the patient must achieve physiological regulation. Unlike many other interventions the intention is clear (balancing the autonomic nervous system, i.e., “make your finger temperature rise”), and hence, motivation is usually increased and hope is enhanced.


During the stage of relationship development, three elements are considered. Firstly, the patient needs to trust the therapist; next they must open to the therapeutic process, and finally, commit to working with the therapist. Biofeedback is likely to be a valuable addition as it may be safe to assume that trust in a therapist that uses medical/scientific explanations will be built more quickly. Openness to the process is achieved via the dialogue that occurs between therapist and patient about the possible interpretations of physiological activity. The movement between subjective and objective sources of information allows the therapeutic dyad to further explore the subtle changes in the patient’s thoughts and emotions. Commitment to the therapeutic relationship is achieved once the patient learns that self-regulation can be exacted via continued exploration of their internal world, and their continued at-home practice (Rolnick, 1999).


A recent review has indicated that maintenance of the therapeutic relationship relies on the following: patient’s continued satisfaction, ability to produce a working alliance, patient’s ability to express emotions and patient experiencing a changed view of the self in front of others (Hardy et. al., 2007). Biofeedback training is likely to produce satisfaction in that the patient not only succeeds in regulating arousal but also receives external validation of this success. The working alliance is strengthened as combined observation of readings, and shared goals, help to solidify the bond. The patient’s growing understanding of their ability to influence physiological reactions facilitates the internalization of a changed view of the self.




Relational and intersubjective therapy, originally based on work by Winicott (1971), and later Bollas (1987) and others (Stolorow,1999), conceive anxiety disorders to be a function of poor ability to self-regulate, a capacity that typically develops throughout infancy via interaction with parental figures.  Recently, significant other relationships have been conceptualized as operating like an ego function by providing stabilization and emotional regulation throughout life (Bacal, 1995).


The psychodynamic formulation of panic disorder, in which neurophysiological factors have been integrated with psychodynamic constructs provides insight into this approach (Busch, Milrod & Singer, 1999).


The biosocial theory proposed by Linehan (1993) asserts that individuals with emotional disorders are biologically vulnerable to experiencing emotions more intensely than the average person, and also have more difficulty modulating their intensity. In psychophysiological terms they are high reactors with a very limited ability to calm down. The second element in Linehan’s theory states that emotional disorders develop during childhood wherein an invalidating environment contributes to emotion dysregulation. More specifically the issues are that parents fail to teach the child how to label and regulate arousal, how to tolerate emotional distress, and when to trust their own emotional responses as reflections of valid interpretations of events. Therapy conducted with biofeedback calls for validation and empathy and provides for the acquisition of self regulation of dysphoric affects via biofeedback training.




We have attempted to provide a brief view of Neal Miller’s cross-pollination of  psychoanalytic concepts with operational behavioral research, and the derived clinical application of biofeedback and psychoanalysis both now and in Miller’s time. When Miller was in Vienna, and when he worked with John Dollard, he met a different psychoanalysis than that which exists today. Presently psychoanalytic psychotherapists place more and more emphasis not only on instinct modulating affect, but  on the healing effects of a “therapeutic relationship”, and on the importance and contribution of both analyst’s and analysand’s psyches to the subjectively experienced relationship and “intersubjective field.”  As discussed, current psychoanalytic theory translates directly into the biofeedback treatment situation via the exploration of interpersonal relationship dynamics between patient, therapist and biofeedback instrumentation.  It appears that the wheel of fate has completed a cycle begun by Neal Miller!!




*This article is partly based on Rolnick , Gal, Bassett, and Barnea  (in press), The contribution of biofeedback in the treatment of anxiety disorders in MS  Schwartz, F. Andrasik. Biofeedback, A Practioner’s Guide, 4th Edition. Guilford Press, New York.













Adler, C.S., & Adler, S.M. (1989). Biofeedback and psychosomatic disorders. In J.V. Basmajian (Ed.), Biofeedback: Principles and practice for practitioner (3rd ed., pp. 255). Baltimore/London: Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins.


Astin, J.A., Shapiro, S.L., Eisenberg, D.M. & Forys, K.L. (2003).  Mind-body medicine: State of the science, implications for practice. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 16, 131-47.


Bacal, H. A. (1995) The Essence of Kohut’s work and the progress of self psychology. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 5(3), 353-366.


Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A.R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293-95.


Bollas, C. (1987). The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the unthought known. New York: Columbia University Press.



Busch, F., Milrod, B., & Singer, M. (1999). Theory and technique in the psychodynamic treatment of panic disorder. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 234-242.


Hamiel, D., & Rolnick, A. (in press).  Biofeedback and cognitive behavioral interventions:

Reciprocal contributions.  In M. S.  Schwartz & F. Andrasik (Eds).,  Biofeedback, A practioner’s guide, 4th Edition. New York: Guilford Press.


Hardy, G., Cahill J., & Barkham M. (2007). Active ingredients of the therapeutic relationship that promote client change: A research perspective. In P. Gilbert & R.J. Leahy (Eds.), The therapeutic relationship in the cognitive behavioral psychotherapies London/New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.


Leahy, R.L., McGinn, L.K., Busch, F.N., & Milrod, B.L. (2005). Anxiety disorders. In G.O. Gabbard , J.S. Beck & J. Holmes (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychotherapy (pp.137-162). Oxford : Oxford University Press.


Linehan, M.M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.


Miller, N. E. (1969). Learning of visceral and glandular responses. Science, 163, 434-445.


Miller, N. E. (1978). Biofeedback and visceral learning. Annual review of psychology, 29, 373-404.


Miller, N. E., & DiCara, L. (1967). Instrumental learning of heart rate changes in curarized rats: Shaping and specificity to discriminative stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 12-19.


Krystal, H. (1988). Integration and self-healing: Affect-trauma-alexithymia. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.


Norcross, J. (2002). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Rickles, W.H. (1981). Biofeedback therapy and transitional phenomena. Psychiatric Annals, 11, 86-93.


Rolnick, A. (1999). Biofeedback. Israel: Prologue. (Book published in Hebrew).


Shedler, J.K. (2009). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65, 98-109.


Stolorow, R. D. (1999).  Dynamic, dyadic, intersubjective systems: An evolving paradigm for psychoanalysis.  Psychoanalytic Psychology, 14(3), 337-346.


Taub, E., & School, P. (1978). Some methodological considerations in thermal biofeedback training. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 617-622.


Wickramasekera, I. (1988). Clinical behavioral medicine. New York: Plenum.


Winnicott, D.W. (1971).  Playing with reality. New York: Routledge Publication. 


Posted 10 years, 2 months ago.

1 comment

Prof Eric Stone write about Neal

I was Neal Miller’s student at both Yale and Rockefeller from 1962-1969 and was involved in extending his biofeedback studies to rodents and in initiating studies on the role of brain catecholamines in animal models of depression.  Miller’s influence has been a significant factor in my subsequent analyses of the neurobiology of depression and development of more effective antidepressant agents.


The thing I most admired about Neal was his supreme rationalism.  He demonstrated time and again that one could approach virtually any problem no matter how difficult with reason and insight mixed with a healthy dose of imagination.  His zeroing in on and identification of feedback as the essential difference between classical and instrumental conditioning and his subsequent use of it to treat emotional disorders is a lasting testament to this rationalism.


We presently live in an era of great scientific advancement and great anti-science reactionism.  There is no question in my mind that had he been alive today, Neal would be in the forefront of the religion/science and evolution/creationism culture wars.  He told me on more than one occasion that he proudly traced his family line back to the amoeba.

Posted 10 years, 5 months ago.

Add a comment

Special Issue of the biofeedback magazine is dedicated to Neal Miller

rolnick initiate miller's special issue in the biofeedback magazineWe are happy to inform that the new issue of the biofeedback magazine published by the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback is dedicated to Neal’s work.

While the committee has not been overly active recently, I hope this event will spur more action from us all.

Following is a list of the articles in the latest issue. Most of them have been previously published in our site;

Testimonial for and Reminiscences about Neal Miller

Gordon H. Bower

Neal Miller and the Integration of Psychoanalysis and Behavior Therapy

Paul L. Wachtel

Phil Zimbardo Remembers Neal Miller

Philip Zimbardo

Neal E. Miller and His Research

Edgar E. Coons and Sarah F. Leibowitz

Paralysis, Scoliosis, and Learning: A Tribute to My Friend Neal Miller

Niels Birbaumer

What Psychology as a Science Owes Neal Miller: The Example of His Biofeedback Research

Edward Taub.

We hope that the fall Issue will contain papers that deals with the Legacy of Neal MIller

Posted 10 years, 6 months ago.

Add a comment

Frank Andrasik’s welcoming comment in the WCBCT2010

Frank Andrasik, the president of the American Association for Behavoral and cognitive therapies, Professor of Psychology & Senior Research Scientist at the 
Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition

and the Editor of Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

Andrasik openning comments in the World congress of Behavioral and Cognitive therapies  are presented in the following video:

Posted 10 years, 10 months ago.

Add a comment

The WCBCT commemorates Neal E. Miller

The recent World Congress of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies which was held in Boston June 2-5, 2010 has posted the following paragraph in the scientific program page in its internet site (

“The WCBCT commemorates Neal E. Miller (1909-2002)

Dr. Neal Miller, a professor of psychology and neuroscience, proved to be a pioneering force in studies of motivation and, learning and reward. His influence in the areas of biofeedback and behavioral medicine was equally invaluable .

Neal Miller served as president of the American Psychological Association (1960-61), the Society for Neuroscience (1971-72 and founding member in 1969), the Academy of Behavioral Medicine (1978-79 and founding member) and the Biofeedback Society of America (1984). In addition, he was honored with various awards and titles, including; the National Medal of Science, The millennial ANDP Award in Neuroscience Education, James Rowland Angell Professor of Psychology at Yale, Professor Emeritus at Rockefeller . Dr. Miller influenced a generation of psychologists and specifically behaviorally inclined psychotherapist. It was already in 1950 that together with Dollard he argued (also cited In a letter he wrote to Joseph Wolpe, 1978) that: “psychotherapy as a process of emotional reeducation involving the unlearning of maladaptive responses and the learning of more adaptive one.”

To read more about Professor Miller’s extensive and significant impact on the field of psychology go to”



Posted 10 years, 10 months ago.

Add a comment

David Barlow’s lecture on Cognitive Behavior Therapy in Boston in 1965, 2010, and 2025

David Barlow’s lecture on the history and the future of CBT, is not related directly to Neal Miller – but as this site is interested in the develoment of psychology, we thought that this lecture might be relavant.

We present here most of the lecture (divided to two parts: History and Future)


This is also our way to thank the organizing committee of the WCBCT2010 for their note on WCBCT commemorates Neal E. Miller

Posted 10 years, 10 months ago.

Add a comment