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