Martijn:

I'm sure you are continually publishing what you're doing -- that's
your primary area of interest. And, if I'm not mistaken, what your
current paper shows is a possible role for QEEG in predicing
medication response -- not exactly the same thing as demonstrating
incremental efficacy/efficiency of two or more different approaches
to neurofeedback. Personalized MEDICINE is a good name for what you
do IMO because you are clearly committed to a MEDICAL procedure under
medical/professional supervision -- and that is certainly appropriate
re: the use of medication.

One of our major points of disagreement concerns your belief that
neurofeedback MUST be seen -- and regulated -- as a
medical/professional procedure. I disagree with that, except in re:
to the kinds of approaches you use and support. Those probably are
best done by licensed healthcare practitioners. They have a far
higher side-effect profile and require considerable expertise.

Re: your point that: "Furthermore, we also show very clearly that
simply relying on filters (linear or non-linear) or single locations
you will intermix the 2 most important sub-types, namely the frontal
slow and slowed Alpha Peak Frequency" there are two major,
interesting responses:

1. We don't use just "linear or non-linear" filters (as you call
them). Our unique Targeting procedure uses Adaptive JTFA, adaptive in-
line de-noising as well non-linear control procedures. Quite a bit
different from what you might have tested.
2. There is a belief underlying what you do: viz, that separating out
these various "sub-types" is important. In re: to some classes of
medications that is likely true; however, in re: to neurofeedback it
clearly isn't true -- at least when done using our method and
software.

Why not publish elsewhere? My question is: why publish? I'll let
others do that. I have more important things to go re: the software
itself.

val