Sensorimotor rhythm training is one of the oldest and best-studied neurofeedback protocols. It has an unusual origin story, a long research history, and a modern literature that is worth reading carefully rather than filtered through either enthusiast or dismissive coverage. For adults interested in the actual evidence base for neurofeedback, SMR is where the story is most complete.
The accidental discovery
Sensorimotor rhythm, an EEG oscillation in the 12-15 Hz range recorded over the sensorimotor cortex, was characterized in the late 1960s by Barry Sterman at UCLA. Sterman was studying cats when he noticed that animals could learn to increase this rhythm when rewarded for doing so. The finding might have remained an obscure animal-learning result except for what happened next. NASA contracted Sterman to investigate whether monomethylhydrazine, a rocket-fuel component that had been linked to seizures in exposed workers, would lower seizure thresholds in animals. The SMR-trained cats turned out to be markedly more resistant to seizures than untrained controls.
This unexpected finding launched decades of research on SMR training as a subject of neuroscience study, and later as a target for attention and sleep-related applications. Sterman’s original work is a useful anchor because it establishes something important: SMR training was validated as producing real, physiologically meaningful changes long before it became a wellness product. Whatever its limits, the underlying phenomenon is not marketing.
What SMR is actually doing
The sensorimotor rhythm appears to reflect a specific state: motor stillness combined with alert cognitive engagement. It is the EEG signature of a body that is not moving but a mind that is present. Sterman and later researchers have proposed that training SMR trains the underlying regulatory circuit, which appears to involve the thalamic reticular nucleus and its connections to sensorimotor cortex. The mechanism is not fully settled, but the training effect on SMR amplitude is well documented.
Practically, SMR training tends to produce a specific subjective state: settled, alert, and less reactive. This is why it has been explored not only in the seizure-research context but as a general tool for regulation and attention research.
The Lubar chapter
Joel Lubar at the University of Tennessee expanded SMR work in the 1970s and 1980s into what would become the most cited application of neurofeedback: attention research. Lubar’s early studies suggested that certain attentional patterns showed characteristic EEG signatures (elevated theta, reduced beta in specific regions) and that training could shift these patterns. This work established what came to be called the theta/beta ratio as an EEG marker, and it created the modern neurofeedback research community’s most active line of inquiry.
It is important to be careful here about what this history does and does not establish. Lubar’s early work was pioneering but methodologically limited by the standards of modern clinical trials. Subsequent research, including large meta-analyses by Cortese et al. (2016) and others, has produced a more nuanced picture. The theta/beta ratio does not reliably discriminate individuals as originally hoped. Neurofeedback shows effect sizes that are real but smaller than early advocates claimed, and quality of the trial affects the finding. The current mainstream position among careful researchers is that neurofeedback has demonstrable EEG training effects and modest cognitive effects, and that neither claim is well captured by the “brain training that changes lives” framing that populated early marketing.
The modern evidence base
Where does that leave someone reading the current literature? A few reasonably solid conclusions. Neurofeedback protocols, including SMR training, produce measurable EEG changes in most participants. Those changes are specific to the targeted signature rather than diffuse. Effect sizes on cognitive performance measures are modest, roughly comparable to structured mindfulness training or cognitive rehabilitation. Individual variance is high: some people respond substantially, others minimally, and predicting who will respond remains an open research question. Higher-quality studies (double-blind, sham-controlled) tend to show smaller effects than open-label studies, which is typical of intervention research generally.
Ros et al. (2020) published the CRED-nf checklist as a call for higher reporting standards, and the literature has been improving since. Recent reviews from research groups including Arns and colleagues, and separately Pigott and colleagues, present the state of evidence as neither vindicated nor refuted but genuinely mixed and worth further study.
What this means for a curious adult
Reading fifty years of SMR research does not produce a simple recommendation. It does produce something more useful: a realistic expectation. Structured EEG training can teach the brain to modulate specific signatures with practice. That skill sometimes generalizes to real-world tasks, sometimes does not, and appears to require the same kind of consistency any skill acquisition demands. The neurofeedback field’s honest self-assessment now emphasizes protocol quality, individualization, and objective outcomes.
For adults interested in the science rather than the marketing, this is actually good news. A field that has moved from enthusiast claims to more modest, methodologically rigorous work is a field worth taking seriously. SMR training in particular has the longest research trail and the clearest picture of what it does and does not do.
See also: Neurofeedback vs Meditation: Where the Two Diverge.
NeuroSphere is a clinical-grade neurofeedback platform designed for adults who want measurable insight into their brain states. See how the protocol works.
NeuroSphere is a wellness and cognitive training tool, not a medical device or treatment for any condition. It does not replace care from a licensed clinician, therapist, or physician. Neurofeedback research is ongoing and findings vary; this post discusses general scientific context, not personalized clinical advice. If you are experiencing significant emotional distress, please reach out to a qualified professional. U.S. resources: 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988), SAMHSA (1-800-662-4357), National Institute of Mental Health.