I continue to be amazes at how much Sieg gets right and, perhaps even more
stunningly, what he gets wrong. It is real wonder how that conjunction
occurs.

In his latest newsletter Sieg does a good job (IMO) of summarizing a lot of
the field. In particular he contextualizes what I would call "classical
neurofeedback" fairly well and in doing so, does a pretty good job of
stating a number of important limitations in that overall paradigm. He also
does a fairly good job (again IMO) of summarizing a number of the
divergences involved in the more innovative approaches, including ours,
ROSHI and LENS, as well as his own. The problem is that he leaves out a lot
of the story (and yes space limitations can be a real constraint) and that
simply doesn't tell the truth on some other points. The whole thread can be
seen at:

http://www.eeginfo.com/newsletter/?p=432#more-432

I've also posted a couple of notes to follow up to his original post.

It is really interesting to watch how the field continues to "discover" what
we originally did, but about 5 or more years later. I certainly appreciate
the mention that Sieg makes of my complete abandonment of the classical
paradigm. It is (again IMO) important to mention that and, since I've now
withdrawn from presenting at what are called "the conferences" it would be
easy for my name and Sue's to be completely forgotten. Thanks Sieg for the
mention -- I do appreciate it. I would also appreciate you -- and others --
telling the rest of the story, well really the rest of the stories, esp when
the ideas of dynamic thresholding came from, what really CAN be done with
Adaptive Gabor Transforms (esp in conjunction with Non-linear, Dynamical
Control processes) and some others come into the conversation. Who knows,
if that started happening, I might even go back and present at one of those
events. Hey, stranger things have happened.... ;-)

Really Sieg I do thank you for the mention in your newsletter. You really
don't have to do it so it says a lot that you do.