Thank you Julie for using your extensive knowledge of biofeedback and
neurofeedback to get across some very nice points. Bravo and thanks.


Meg


--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Bachers"
<abachers@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a recent post from another list from Julie Weiner, a Zengar
> NeuroCARE user in Yonkers, NY, posted with her permission. This is
in
> response to an inquiry as to others' experiences with various
systems and
> whether they would recommend them.
>
> Alan Bachers
>
>
> Like many other very experienced neurofeedback practitioners, I have
> switched to Zengar NeuroCAREPro. It is simple to learn and to use
once it
> is correctly installed on your computer, and it very reliable as a
> clinical tool because it feeds back to the brain information about
signal
> variability, which was years ago identified as a key measure of
> self-regulation, rather than specific amplitude or coherence
measures.
>
> I tried for years to use symptom and QEEG-based protocols, but the
problem
> with those is how plodding a way of working they are. As with
medication
> trials, it can take hours, days or weeks to "get it right." During
that
> time, it is easy to lose the client's confidence because of
setbacks,
> interruptions to or lack of progress.
>
> Zengar NCP is reliable because it leaves to each brain the question
of
> exactly what needs to be corrected. The brain is a far more
efficient
> correlation machine than you or I can possibly be no matter how
expert we
> become in referring to databases of QEEG norms or EEG-equivalents of
> neuropsychological symptoms.
>
> ZNCP simply triggers the brain's own "orienting response" whenever
any of
> the brain's self-regulatory mechanisms go off-line. The brain
checks out
> what the problem is within itself, and begins to self-correct. How
the
> program knows when a self-regulatory mechanism goes offline: by
measuring
> changes in signal variability (more detail on which, below). How it
> triggers the orienting response: by creating a very brief pause in
a
> musical phrase when variability changes. (The client or therapist
chooses
> the music being played from either a CD or music files on the
> practitioner's computer.) The unexpected break in the rhythm or
> continuity of phrase triggers the orienting response, upon which the
> brain automatically scans itself (as it always does when something
> unexpected happens; after all, self-scanning is the only way brains
figure
> out what's going on in their environment, since all sensory
information
> about the outside world is represented inside as neuronal changes).
>
> How ZNCP measures and feeds back signal varibility: it continually
> measures, from the center of both left and right hemisphere (C3 and
C4,
> the central placements over the sensory-motor strip), the signal
amplitude
> of eight different frequency bins, and certain of the relationships
> between left and right (e.g. difference, I presume, although the
exact
> parameters of the four "Zengar" protocols are proprietary), and
derives
> variability measures over a moving time-window. Whenever there is a
> change in signal variability above or below the recently previous
> differences measured, the music (and/or visual signal; one can use
a movie
> or AVI file or G-force abstractions) is stopped for a brief instant.
>
> The therapist's role, at present, is simply to be present with the
client
> as witness to their journey, and to maintain the parameters of the
> feedback so that the stops do not become too regular and frequent,
which
> would cause the brain to habituate to and ignore them, nor too
long, which
> would make listening to the music annoying because of all the
pauses, nor
> too seldom, which might provide too little information for a
session to be
> meaningful.
>
> The down side of NCP is that it requires a high-end computer
because of
> the graphic, audio and rapid, concurrent calculation demands,
adding to
> the expense. And some people find the personality of its inventor,
Val
> Brown, pompous. But he really has come up with a brilliant system,
and
> perhaps deserves his pride of leadership and frustration with the
> obtuseness and hostility of some of his critics. I have followed
the
> development of what is now Zengar NCP over many years. It grew
> organically, through Val's systematically integrating several
> then-established (or neglected) but competing neurofeedback
protocols
> (e.g. beta, SMR, alpha-theta and the then-frequently-ignored earlier
> discoveries about 40-Hz and single-Hz frequency bins; Val himself,
as far
> as I know, developed 7/14/21 Hz work from Mike Tansey's
observations about
> the emotional concomitants of particular single-Hz bins); exploring
the
> strengths of Thought Technology's original Biograph program ( e.g.
its
> ability to feed back, with a variety of both visual and auditory
signals,
> more than the three threshold settings and frequency bins that were
then
> standard; to set moving thresholds; to allow the therapist to view a
> full-length, two-channel "frequency mirror" or other technical
signal info
> on one screen while giving the client simple visual images of
specific EEG
> frequency-bin changes on the other; to track variability; etc.);
finally
> inventing his own program when he had fully tested the limits of
Biograph,
> and increasingly automating NCP "journey" choices to free the
therapist to
> be more psychically present with the client. Other instrument
> manufacturers are now inadvertently flattering Val by incorporating
> derivations of variability (e.g. "Z-score" or variability feedback)
> capabilities into their programs, automating protocol choices, etc.
>
> So, I've finally officially joined the NCP bandwagon. If I were
still
> using QEEG-based protocols (as I suppose I will eventually again if
some
> client in the future isn't satisfied with the effects of NCP), I
would go
> with Thornton's Activation QEEG (provided my DOS-based W98 computer
and
> Lexicor equipment hold up), Peter Van Deusen's similar mini-Q
procedures
> for testing under cognitive challenge, or Sue Othmers' symptom-based
> protocols, patiently derived from the original simple SMR and beta
> protocols of Sterman, Lubar and Tansey and alpha (or alpha-theta)
> protocols of Kamiya, Fahrion and Peniston/Kulkosky over many years
of
> experience with a wide variety of severely disabled clients. (See
> http://www.eegspectrum.com/Applications/Intro/UltimateSelf-
Help/HistoryofEEGBiofeedback/
> for a good summary-history of neurofeedback).
>
> Anyway, if you can invest the bucks in a fancy new computer, I'd
vote for
> Zengar. Especially if you're new to neurofeedback, it is truly
turn-key;
> there is less to learn to get up and running (though eventually you
might
> want to learn more mathematics if you're curious about some of the
> instrument's assessment capabilities) and you can be doing amazing
work to
> help your clients without having to know a lot of neurophysiology,
without
> investing in QEEG equipment and learning how to paste 23 electrodes
in the
> right place with the right impedances, and without sending clients
out for
> a $1200 QEEG evaluation before you work with them.
>
> Julie
>