Having problems with message search?
Dear Val,
I really don’t think there can be
any comparison to personal computers, IPods or the like in the discussion of
neurofeedback, except in the very limited realm of engineering and
accessibility. The implicit frame of your argument seems to be that all we need
in this venture is better software - that the venture itself is about a single
brain making itself “better”. If this is your assumption, I don’t
share it. To me, the most important thing that neurofeedback can do is to
enhance our capacity to relate to one another. I think the most significant
contribution that neurofeedback makes in this regard is the reduction of fear.
When you drain the fear out, everything changes. If you fail to do this the
consequences are equally profound. There really has to be an other there, the
one who is monitoring, caring, understanding and interpreting the changes. As a
friend of mine put it, “a devotional presence.” We are always
working within the universe of at least two brains.
So to me, neurofeedback is so profoundly not
about the technology. In the realms that I think are most profound, increasing
access has its hazards. I think it is important to recognize that. That being
said, I have no doubt that we will advance technologically much faster than we
do interpersonally. It seems the human way. It is just that this technology,
unlike any other, allows us, potentially, to keep pace. We only have a shot at
this if we recognize this particular potential of neurofeedback.
People will, no doubt, have increasing
access to brain training technology. Will this lead them/us to more access to
each other? That, to me, is the most important question.
Sebern
From:
neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:29
PM
To:
neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [neurofeedcommunity]
Recent Events in Neurofeedback
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
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-
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.
Send Email
