A recent post on Biofeedback@Yahoogroups. Com raised again a number of points in
re:
to ZNC (Zengar NeuroCARE) that are inaccurate. I thought I'd take this
opportunity to
clarify a few of those point FWIW.

P:>
<One critic> makes no attempt to address the fact that like it or not, many
people who
also happen to be excellent, experienced clinicians (not groupies) with a
variety of systems
under their belt, find that NC gets good results with a fair number of people a
fair amount
of the time, AND it is easy to use. A good scientist will ask how this is
possible, and not
dismiss the matter as placebo, which requires no extra work or open-mindedness
on the
accuser's part.

Val:> This is an essential point which, truthfully, NONE of the critics want to
address
because, if they begin to address it, the door is opened to considering the
actual value of
ZNC. The whole point of most of the criticisms is NOT to understand ZNC but to
either
dismiss it and co-opt if in some fashion. Simply acknowledging that it really
works is to
raise the stakes for those who know they don't understand what ZNC does, how it
accomplishes what it does AND also know that no other neurofeedback system can
replicate it.

That's the "easier" part to hear. The tougher part to hear concerns the comment
that "…
ZNC gets good results with a FAIR NUMBER of people a FAIR AMOUNT of the time…"
The
truth is far more direct and clarifying: if ZNC doesn't get "good results" then
either it isn't
being used in our recommended, default way of working OR there are some
"extrinsic
constraints" in operation that will minimize training possibilities, until they
are addressed.
You can't paint your house in the middle of the hurricane. When extrinsic
constraints are
operating (eg remaining in an abusive, traumatic situation) the training effects
of ZNC (and
other approaches) will be minimized. That isn't anything "wrong" with ZNC, it's
a
recognition that we are all living tissue that responds to the environment in
which we
exist.

P:> What NC is not, and never was, in my experience and the experience of NC
users that I
trust, is a "comprehensive" total solution. That is just Val's greed or ego at
work. NC
plateaus or simply isn't right for a given client presentation more times than
Val or his
followers would care to admit…

Val:> I find these kinds of comments intriguing, esp because they are inaccurate
but also
because they fail to mention any specific data. I have always asked for data
from those
who report these kinds of ideas/observations and to date I have NEVER received
ANY data
from ANY person that actually demonstrates or supports this idea. Never, no
data. The
ONLY data I've received actually showed that the user didn't use ZNC in its
recommended,
default fashion – rather it was used in some interventionstic fashion – or that
there were
some extrinsic constraints involved. I am still waiting for ANY such data to
arrive from
ANY one – including the person who wrote that note! The reality is that ZNC is
comprehensive and easy to use – and those two factors make it rather unsettling
for those
who want to believe that neurofeedback is or should be much more difficult,
requiring
various forms of "expert knowledge" in order to work or be safe.

P:>which brings me <a ZNC user, who>…needs to say a lot more than "I treated 250
people and everybody is happy". We know from past posts that <she> works (or
worked)
with a personal injury population, (many of whom cant speak English) for a
limited number
of visits, so all this must be factored into the bigger picture if we are going
to consider
Meg's experience as "data".

Val:> Hmmm, so ZNC can be effective with people who can't even speak English?
This
must mean that it is possible that neurofeedback training can occur without any
direct
consciously coached presence or explicit understanding – on the part of the
client – as to
what specifically being trained at any particular time. That is, yet again,
another challenge
presented by ZNC – it works without the client needing to be educated as to how
it works.
No "expert" knowledge is needed by either the client or the trainer.

P:> The key finding to date, as I understand it, is Val, by design or
programming accident,
has extra "mystery variability" pre-programmed or otherwise superimposed on a
valid EEG
signal
coming from the brain.

Val:> No that's an inaccurate judgment and inappropriate characterization of
that
judgment by those who don't understand ZNC and want to criticize, dismiss or
otherwise
denigrate it -- because they don't understand it and can't replicate it using
other
systems. This has been addressed in the videos I developed and posted several
months
ago. Those videos are still available and may even NOW find their way onto
Biofeedback@Yahoogroups. Originally Vlad prevented them from being posted there,
saying that the videos were "too large" for yahoo; however, despite that
statement, they
were posted on zengarncp@yahoogroups.com, which is also a yahoo supported forum.

P:> Whether one can or cannot do traditional NFB with NC is another issue. I
know of lots
of good clinicians who have.

Val:> Of course you CAN, if that's what you really want to do.


P:> What if NC is, at the end of the day, a hybrid system that is part a NFB
system and in
part an entrainment system? Specifically, IF the extra variability is
deliberately used in NC,
to that extent it is an entrainment system.

Val:> First of all, there is no "extra variability" but, even if there were,
that wouldn't
constitute "entrainment". Entrainment refers to the stimulus that is given to
the client, not
how the stimulus is derived by the program. Any stimulus that is crafted to use
direct
induction effects to definitely "move" the CNS, is an entrainment stimulus. The
simple
example is the use of a 14 Hz offset to induce a 14 Hz response, as was done by
Paul
Swingle and others. ZNC uses MUSIC – not pure tones – and it's very difficult
to
understand how the use of MUSIC can be seen as entrainment when the MUSIC choice
can
even be left up to the client! Entrainment stimuli have to be crafted precisely
to have the
desired effect.

P:> Finally, what if NC uses disentrainment techniques, analogous to the pRoshi?

Val:> Actually, as I've said on many occasions, the term "disentrainment" is an
oxymoron,
used to not see that such approaches actually use "entrainment and migration" as
a
control procedure. Whether or not one wants to see "disentrainment" as using
"entrainment" the fact remains that "disentrainment" relies on the precise
crafting of the
stimulus – in precisely the same ways and "entrainment" stimuli must be crafted
– in order
to effectively "migrate" the system either "away from" an undesired point (using
"disentrainment") or towards a desired point (using "entrainment"). The process
of
crafting the stimulus to be given is fundamentally the same in entrainment and
"disentrainment" processes, and not at all what is done in ZNC.


P:> A friend of mine tells a story (which is readily verified or refuted) about
Tom Allen who
was "jamming" with the Browns around the time of NC's birth. Reportedly, Tom was
doing
a session on Sue Brown with Val observing. The session, using a very early
version of NC,
was bogging down but then, by acciednt, Tom started to move the thresholds
around at
random, and Sue responded dramatically. Who is to say Val didnt endevor to make
this
"accident" a perminent feature of NC?

Val:> I'm always intrigued by attempts to re-invent history, esp by people who
weren't
present when it happened. The meeting occurred at FutureHealth, used Biograph –
not
ZNC – and it was me demonstrating to Tom how dynamical thresholding worked.
What we
meant by dynamical thresholding at that time was to "dance" the single line
threshold
above AND below the current value of the signal (effectively "backeting" it) and
then watch
the response of the signal to that maneuver. What we had found was that
"inhibit"
frequencies would bounce a bit and then DECREASE their average level in response
to such
a process, whereas "augment" frequencies would bounce a bit and then INCREASE
their
average level in response to the EXACT SAME PROCEDURE. The signals renormalized
themselves simply by dynamically thresholding AROUND them. I also reposted on
this at
the same FutureHealth, including a live demo of this in front of the entire
audience. What
Tom and others had done was to move a threshold in ONE DIRECTION, viz the
direction
the signal "should" go, and they could watch the signal successively approximate
that
change. Tom was not the first to demonstrate that – it was a standard idea in
many
traditional operant procedures (and Sue was on faculty at SUNY Stony Brook at
the time) –
and it remains a distinct procedure from the dynamical one that I demonstrated
at
FutureHealth.

P:> All this is just meant to open the frame of reference here, and to have
something new
to talk about.

Val:> Yes, having an open frame of reference is important, esp when attempting
to
appreciate something that is radically different.