I've been reviewing some of the recent "events" in the field of neurofeedback
and thought
that I might post a few observations. Some would say it's a rant but, then
again, some
want to say that whatever I say is a rant. Certainly I'm up on a soap box a bit
so....

I noticed a recent posting concerning neurofeedback and the "need" for highly
trained
professional involvement in home training. It's an interesting position to take
-- one very
reminescent of the stance taken by IT professionals in the early days of PCs.
Nowdays, of
course, the PC you're using to read this post is likely to be x100 more poweful
than what
those antiquated IT professionals used. We now have GPS, VOIP, data mining and
Googling with virtually unlimited access to the accumulated knowledge of
researchers
around the world -- and it's available at the touch of a button, drag of a
mouse.

Putting such power in the hands of "ordinary citizens" was essentially
unthinkable -- and
terrifying! to those who DID think about it --not even 15 years ago. Now, it's
as ho-hum
as firing up your iPod or dialing the telephone. Technology changes everything
and that's
especially true in a technological intensive field like neurofeedback. The
reality is that,
with the right system, one doesn't need to be an "expert" -- this is true in
terms of GPS
navigation, trip planning, financial matters and many, many other areas. It is
really only
some very backwards thinking that leads people to believe otherwise. Well that,
and the
kinds of trainings systems that they use. If you use a limited system it may
very well
require a lot of knowledge, expertise and training before it can be used well.
Newer, well
designed systems -- like NeuroCARE -- are just easier to use, more comprehensive
and
fault-tolerant. It's like the difference between DOS and Vista or other
GUI-intensive
computer systems.

The better and more complete the system, the less expertise and knowledge is
required of
the typical user -- it's really quite simple in that regard.

However, the discussions in and around this field continue to support the belief
in the
necessity and intrinsic value in professional-intensive services like QEEG,
neuropsychological assessment, etc in order to provide "effective and safe"
neurofeedback.
It's really quite amazing to watch -- esp when those same discussions are
peppered with
(very low key) acknowledgements that the expert-driven systems do not give
increased,
incremental effectiveness when compared amongst themselves -- or even when
contrasted with non-expert driven approaches.

Now does that mean that experts and expertise won't be useful in the future? Of
course
note -- even though typical home users systems dwarf the capabilities of the NSA
of 25
years ago, the realm for expertise continues to expand. It's just not needed
for the day to
day, typical uses of computers. And that's the point. The technology should
make
training more accessible to more people with lessened need for specialization so
that,
when useful, specialized expertise can be fruitfully brought to bear. You no
longer need
an IT specialist to setup your home network, connect to the internet and have
access to
virtually unlimited knowledge and possibilities.

Why should it be different re: neurofeedback?

And while we're using the term neurofeedback, let's clarify something.
Neurofeedback
requires the use of FEEDBACK -- ie a "real-time" monitoring of some system
parameter(s)
the value(s) of which can be "fed back" to the system that generates those
values with the
feedback being able to MODIFY the CURRENT status of the system. If there is no
"real-
time" monitoring occurring, then no matter how useful or interesting the process
involved,
it can't be neurofeedback because it doesn't involve any possible FEEDBACK.

We need to be clear that using the term neurofeedback to describe or refer to
approaches
like pROSHI or LENS is simply inaccurate and misleading. This is not to say
that those
system aren't being used by many with good success. This is simply clarifying
terminology so we all can talk together. No real-time monitoring, no feedback
-- it can't
be neuroFEEDBACK. Perhaps neuroTHERAPY is more apt, but neurofeedback is
clearly
wrong.

Terminology is important because it links us to other domains, other communities
and
other sources of knowledge and perspective. For this reason I continue to
observe that
the term "disentrainment" (used to describe pROSHI and LENS among others) is an
oxymoron. The proper term is "entrain and migrate" where entrainment is what is
done (ie
a specific crafting of the non-feedback stimulus in terms of frequency,
amplitude, phase,
intensity, etc) and migration is the intended effect (ie moving the system from
where it is
currently "parked"). "Entrainment and Migration" is a well understood
phenomenon in the
world of Non-linear Dynamical engineering and it really behooves us IMO and IME
to not
only be aware of that literature but to utilize many of the concepts, terms and
processes
developed within that literature to better understand and provide neurofeedback
training.

OK, I'm coming down off the soap box now.