Summary:  Purpose: To compare self‐regulation of low‐frequency EEG components (slow cortical potentials, SCPs) with other methods of seizure control for patients with drug‐refractory partial epilepsy and to separate the real anticonvulsive effect from placebo effects.Methods: Results of a treatment program of SCP self‐regulation (experimental group) are compared with two groups of patients, one of which learned self‐control of respiratory parameters (end‐tidal CO₂ and respiration rate: RES group); the other received medication with new anticonvulsive drugs (AEDs) in combination with psychosocial counseling (MED group). Clinical, cognitive, behavioral, and personality measures were assessed before and after treatment. In addition, to control for placebo responses, patients repeatedly estimated their beliefs in the efficiency of the respective treatment, their satisfaction and expectations, and the quality of the relationship with their therapists.Results: SCP and MED groups showed a significant decrease of seizure frequency, but the RES group did not. Clear positive changes in the sociopsychological adjustment were obtained in all three groups, with the maximal improvement being attained in the RES group.Conclusions: All kinds of therapy result in considerable improvement of patients' emotional state, which may in part be due to potential placebo effects; however, this improvement is not related to the quality of the therapeutic effect proper (i.e., seizure reduction). Traditional double‐blind control group designs are inappropriate for behavioral interventions or treatments with psychoactive pharmacologic drugs. Rather, specific tests can be developed to control the placebo effect and to separate it from the genuine therapeutic effects.

Brain oscillations likely play a significant role in the storage of information in working memory (WM). Despite the wide popularity of the topic, current attempts to summarize the research in the field are narrative reviews. We address this gap by providing a descriptive systematic review, in which we investigated oscillatory correlates of maintenance of verbal and visual information in WM. The systematic approach enabled us to challenge some common views popularized by previous research. The identified literature (100 EEG/MEG studies) highlighted the importance of theta oscillations in verbal WM: frontal midline theta enhanced with load in most verbal studies, while more equivocal results have been obtained in visual studies. Increasing WM load affected alpha activity in most studies, but the direction of the effect was inconsistent: the ratio of studies that found alpha increase versus decrease with increasing load was 80/20% in the verbal WM domain and close to 60/40% in the visual domain. Alpha asymmetry (left < right) was a common finding in both verbal and visual WM studies. Beta and gamma activity studies yielded the least convincing data: a diversity in the spatial and frequency distribution of beta activity prevented us from making a coherent conclusion; gamma rhythm was virtually neglected in verbal WM studies with no systematic support for sustained gamma changes during the delay in EEG studies in general.

Neuroscience is multidisciplinary effort to understand structures and functions of the brain and brain-mind relations. This effort results in the increasing amount of data, generated by sophisticated technologies. However, these data enhance our descriptive knowledge, rather than to improve our understanding of brain functions. This is caused by methodological gaps both within and between subdisciplines constituting neuroscience, and the atomistic approach that limits the study of macro- and mesoscopic issues. Whole-brain measurement technologies do not resolve these issues, but rather aggravate them by the complexity problem. The present paper is devoted to methodological and epistemic problems that obstruct the development of human neuroscience. We neither discuss ontological questions (e.g., the nature of the mind) nor review data, except when it is necessary to demonstrate a methodological issue. As regards intradisciplinary methodological problems, we concentrate on those within neurobiology (e.g., the gap between electrical and chemical approaches to neurophysiological processes) and psychology (missing theoretical concepts). As regards interdisciplinary problems, we suggest that core disciplines of neuroscience can be integrated using systemic concepts that also entail human-environment relations. We emphasize the necessity of a meta-discussion that should entail a closer cooperation with philosophy as a discipline of systematic reflection. The atomistic reduction should be complemented by the explicit consideration of the embodiedness of the brain and the embeddedness of humans. The discussion is aimed at the development of an explicit methodology of integrative human neuroscience, which will not only link different fields and levels, but also help in understanding clinical phenomena.