Martijn:

Again, this is a place where we disagree and where, IMO, you are specifically
misstating
some things. To say that another way, it's not me who's got this reversed;
rather, you do.

You may not like to hear this -- esp from me -- but it remains true that you do
actualy
BELIEVE that localization is critically important to providing a differentially
better outcome
regardless of neurofeedback training method used. That stance remains a BELIEF
on your
part -- as well as many others -- because it has not yet been tested, and esp
not in re: to
what we do in using NeuroCARE. IF you want that BELIEF to translate into a
scientific
statement THEN you would need to do the actual head-to-head comparison using
NeuroCARE as we say to do it. Without that comparison you are simply restating
your
belief. To put this even more succinctly, as far as I know, you've never
actually used
NeuroCARE so it's very difficult to understand how you think you would be in a
position to
even begin to assess its relative utility.

On the other hand, I actually have done that kind of specific comparison and
testing over
the years. Remember, unlike you (and others), I have actually owned, taught and
worked
with virtually every piece of equipment out there. It isn't belief for me --
it's clear,
repeatable experience which, if you used NeuroCARE, you might actually
experience. Yes,
it's true that almost all of my data isn't published -- at this point -- and
that's for all of
the reasons I've stated here as well as in other venues on other occasions.

So, I take it from your note that you're really not interested at all in
actually doing the
head-to-head comparison study. If you change your mind, post it here so others
can see;
then we can proceed.

I've been waiting for years for that to happen with someone -- including you --
perhaps
now it will. I certainly hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

And let's remember one other thing. Look at the title of this thread. This
began with
someone who had posted re: their experience with GSR. In that note they
mentioned
NeuroCARE and I replied to that. I'm not really aware of how much you've
actually worked
with GSR or HRV, etc but I used to teach BCIA certification courses in
traditional measures
-- did you? I raise that part of my history because my responses to the
original poster
were geared specifically to that individual having trouble with GSR, and who
also had an
interest in NeuroCARE. It seems to me that you've kind of taken this a bit far
afield of the
original thread but I'm happy to continue the conversation here or elsewhere --
just as I'm
happy to support an effort to have a real "head-to-head" comparison of NeuroCARE
and
traditional, Q-guided neurofeedback.

I'm ready and willing -- what about you?

If you're really not ready or willing, just say so; if you are, just say so. In
the end, it really
doesn't make any difference to me or what I do. But it might make an enormous
difference to what you and some others do.

val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Martijn Arns" <marns@...> wrote:
>
> Val,
>
> I think you are reversing some things. I don't think it is wise to
> discuss this at length over the list and bore other people with our
> differnce in viewpoint, if you really want to get to an understanding on
> this topic let's continue this off list and we'll post our outcomes once
> we agree on things.
>
> One last thing I want to mention is that I don't only BELIEVE, since I
> have provided published data to back my ideas. All you put forward is
> based on BELIEVE and no data.
>
>
>
> Martijn
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
> Sent: dinsdag 25 maart 2008 18:46
> To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: my GSR (SCL) cannot be trained
>
>
>
> Martijn:
>
> You make my points for me, esp re: the differences between our overall
> approach.
>
> You BELIEVE that separating out point sources is critically important in
> providing
> neurofeedback training. That is a BELIEF. You could actually TEST that
> belief by simply
> performing a "head to head" comparison of your guided approach and the
> default,
> recommended way of working in NeuroCARE. It would be an easy comparison
> to setup as
> we have very competent practitioners there in Holland who could be
> involved.
>
> Why not do that and actually settle it?
>
> Single point localization CAN be derived using JTFA-based techniques
> alone. The overall
> methodology to do so is well known and is frequently employed in
> localizing earthquake
> epicenters as well as oil pipeline failure points from a distance with
> only two sources. In
> many cases only one source is needed, depending on the kind of
> signal-base involved.
>
> But that all begs the question because it returns us to YOUR core
> BELIEF: viz, that
> localization is CRITICALLY important. Our users point out everyday with
> their results that
> such a BELIEF is unwarranted.
>
> Different etiologies may -- or may NOT -- necessitate different
> treatments and that also
> goes to the issue of whether or not neurofeedback is inherently a
> treatment. Meditation
> has been used successfully in a number of different contexts that others
> have seen as
> being like a "treatment" because of reported symptom remediation. This
> includes blood
> pressure changes, respiratory improvement, etc. Similarly aerobic
> exercise is well known
> for its salutory effects on cardio-vascular status as well as a variety
> of diagnosable
> conditions. That doesn't make either meditation or aerobic exercise a
> medical treatment -
> - even when they have clear, demonstrable health-related outcomes. And
> those
> outcomes "cross over" diagnostic groupings.
>
> So the BELIEF that different etiologies or different phenomenologies
> REQUIRE different
> approaches is simply not so. In many cases for many diagnoses these
> kinds of distinctions
> ARE critically important but that doesn't mean that the distinctions are
> always and
> everywhere critically important.
>
> If you're interested in setting up a collaborative "head to head" kind
> of study please let me
> know. I'd be happy to facilitate that. That has been my position all
> along and it remains
> my position today. It also remains interesting that no one has agreed to
> actually do such a
> study collaboratively -- esp not those who have continued to criticize
> me over the years.
>
> Why not just do the study?
>
> val
>