Hello everyone--
I am relatively new to neurofeedback, and am in the process of getting up and
running in my practice with it.  I have invested lots of money in several
conventional systems but I am struggling with them for various reasons.  I had a
new ADD child client come to see me recently who had done several months of
training on Zengar, which I had never heard of until now.  I have started to
look into it briefly, and am very excited.  One of the things I struggle with
with the "conventional" systems (thought tech, brainmaster, eeger) is the
constant worry about abreaction and difficulty figuring out which protocol to
start with or change to.  When I did one session with this new client (with a
basic SMR reward, theta inhibit protocol), the mother called me that weekend and
told me he had great difficulty sleeping and was more impulsive and reactive
than ever.  Ugh.  So I have many questions, but I guess I will start with--what
can happen when one goes from Zengar training to a protocol based training? More
potential for abreaction?
I am very interested in exploring Zengar further, but I am limited by two more
concerns--one is the major cost of the system after I have put so much money
into these other systems, and two is that as a beginning neurofeedback clinician
I have not really studied the theory behind it, and would like to get more
familiarized with it.  Can anyone recommend some reading or reference materials
for me to start with?  Thanks for any help!
Nancy

 

Thank you everyone for all of the guidance; it's very encouraging. This little boy's mother actually suggested that he sit in her lap during the neuro, I thought that was a good idea, as well. The main concern I had was that I wanted to be sure that I wouldn't be doing any harm to a child so young; thank you for the clear reassurance that that is certainly not the case.
Valerie

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, molly.neuro@... wrote:
>

> One other idea is to train the care provider, allowing the child to climb up and down the the primary's lap. Over a few sessions the child often will allow the clips to be transfered to him/herself.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "onewellall" <onewellall@...>
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:31:09
> To: <neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Working with young children
>
>
> Hi all!
>
> I've been asked to train a 3 & 1/2 year old boy who has been diagnosed with mild pervasive developmental disorder. I've never run someone so young. Does anyone have any feedback as to whether this would be contraindicated in any way? Or any positive experience?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Valerie
>

Thank you everyone for all of the guidance; it's very encouraging. This little
boy's mother actually suggested that he sit in her lap during the neuro, I
thought that was a good idea, as well.   The main concern I had was that I
wanted to be sure that I wouldn't be doing any harm to a child so young; thank
you for the clear reassurance that that is certainly not the case.
Valerie




--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, molly.neuro@... wrote:
>


> One other idea is to train the care provider, allowing the child to climb up
and down the the primary's lap.  Over a few sessions the child often will allow
the clips to be transfered to him/herself.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "onewellall" <onewellall@...>
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:31:09
> To: <neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Working with young children
>
>
> Hi all!
>
> I've been asked to train a 3 & 1/2 year old boy who has been diagnosed with
mild pervasive developmental disorder.  I've never run someone so young.  Does
anyone have any feedback as to whether this would be contraindicated in any way?
Or any positive experience?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Valerie
>

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----

From: onewellall

To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:31 AM

Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Working with young children

 

Hi all!

I've been asked to train a 3 & 1/2 year old boy who has been diagnosed with mild pervasive developmental disorder. I've never run someone so young. Does anyone have any feedback as to whether this would be contraindicated in any way? Or any positive experience?

Thank you,

Valerie

Hi Valerie,

I train many children with cerebal palsy and all kinds of disabilities and
disorders.
I trained a 4 year old trisomic girl who was very agitated during the first
session. Then she became much calmer and focused.
I trained a 2,5 year old boy who had never slept since the day he was born and
was crying all the time. During the first session he kept on yelling. When the
music ended, he stopped and smiled. And he slept the following nights like he
had never slept and did not cry for several days. The parents decided to buy the
system right away and train at home. Since then there are many changes.
Ten days ago I gave one session to a 7 month old boy. The mother was so happy
with the changes she immediately noticed that she decided to become a trainer
and attended my course two days after.
With all these children Regular sessions are just fine. You can start with the
Initial if you think or the parents think that the child will not remain seated
for half an hour. But then parents realize their child can sit and listen to the
music for half an hour when they thought 5 minutes was already asking too much.
If you're comfortable with this, the child will be too.

Corinne

Hi all!

I've been asked to train a 3 & 1/2 year old boy who has been diagnosed with mild
pervasive developmental disorder.  I've never run someone so young.  Does anyone
have any feedback as to whether this would be contraindicated in any way?  Or
any positive experience?

Thank you,

Valerie

 
 

Here I disagree... When I go to such conferences, there are always people I talk to for whom Val's position makes intuitive sense.  And he does a far better job than I.  It will be good to bring them into the fold when Val starts attending again..
 
Thomas M Brod MD, DFAPA
Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry,
Geffen UCLA School of Medicine
12304 Santa Monica Blvd #210
Los Angeles CA 90025
310.207-3337
http://tbrod.bol.ucla.edu


On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:49 PM, John Thompson wrote:

Val,
That is very interesting. It makes sense that standardized scores, norms, averages etc are not compatible with NDS based neurofeedback. It seems that to use these as a reference point would actually inhibit the transformational process. After all nothing stays the same and to formulate ideal brain states or norms as the goal sounds limiting and akin to the Buddhist notion of grasping. I think this is also one of the limitations of entrainment methods.
 
I also take your point about why you do not wish to participate in the linear and classical based conferences. The people attracted to them as participants are most likely to come out of that framework and yes they would find your information very challenging. I look forward to the time that we have NDS based neurofeedback conferences. That would be fantastic.
John
 
 

From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 4:45 AM
To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: Sieg's recent newsletter
 
 

John,

So here's the thing. What they do, and what they present on, is either something we already done (and have done for years) OR it's completely irrelevant to what we do, meaning it simply isn't relevant.

So, for instance, now the big buzz is (apparently) z-score based training. And it's not bad, at least in some theoretical ways. There are problems with it though, esp in how it's actually implemented. For one thing, a z-score is a linear mathematical concept. NLD/NDS mathematics work much better since we are actually dealing with the CNS and it is clearly NLD/NDS. But the other real problem lies with the idea that there is an "ideal" central tendency for ALL brains and that training needs to be oriented towards migrating EVERY brain back towards that central tendency, wherever that brain happens to be.

It is a slight twist on the Lake Wobegone idea that "all of our children are above average". Most people are so seduced by Gaussian stats that they really do believe that "average" means something important. And, therefore, being ABOVE average might be even better; so Peak Performance means being "above average" rather than "at your personal optimal level".

A related issue is that it's really clear that the "norms" aren't useful, esp not for the purpose of neurofeedback training. At best they give very clumsy "guides" for what might be useful for some severe deficits, but the truth is that there simply isn't enough data to support those "guides" from the point of view of real normative database statistics. We're still probably 10 years away --at best! -- from having that level of data collected, collated and analyzed in meaningful ways. And, even if we DID have that level of data analysis, neurofeedback is done using different technology than the data that is collected and submitted for QEEG-based analyses so there would still be a real question as to how useful the QEEG-based conclusions would be when applied to fundamentally different data (ie the data actually used during neurofeedback).

Similarly, "protocol-based" decision making is irrelevant to what we do. Our comprehensive, adaptive targeting "covers the waterfront" AND adapts itself to the Client's real-time training data AS training happens. So what choices are needed?

So the overwhelming amount of information presented at those conferences is really of no use whatsoever to how we do neurofeedback training.

Now let's turn the question around and ask can presenting what we do at those conferences be useful to others? And the answer to that is, most likely not at all. The real reason for that is that what we do can ONLY be done using NeurOptimal. No other system can work in the same way. So what would others learn? Basically that they would need to replace their current equipment (or at least extend it with a new purchase) and how much do you think others want to hear that? Esp if they've already invested heavily in an alternative approach, and esp one that relies so much on expensive diagnostic or assessment procedures?

It's just too cognitively dissonant.

That's a real shame IMO but "that's the way it is", to gloss Walter Cronkite.

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com> , "Valdeane W. Brown, Ph.D." <valdeanebrown@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Interesting questions and the short answer is that those conferences are not
> only unimportant, in many ways they are irrelevant. And, yes, no longer
> participating in that arena has been a very good thing.
>
> val
>
>
> On 11/08/09 2:25 AM, "John Thompson" <forumnhtc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Val,
> > Invariable the shift will come because of the outstanding advantages of a
> > system such as NeurOptimal that works with process in this way. As threatened
> > as the people are who have big investment in classical approaches they cannot
> > continue to suppress , degrade or ignore the information coming out of
> > nonlinear approaches. After all the results speak for themselves and there is
> > accumulating evidence of efficacy such that the growing mountain is becoming
> > visible. The bigger it gets the harder it is to obscure with the mist of
> > deception and ignorance or divert peopleï¿∏s attention from it. That some are
> > now claiming it as their own is perhaps an extension of pre-existing
> > attitudes. I guess it is somewhat satisfying to have Siegfried acknowledge you
> > pioneering work in the nfb field.
> >
> > I think that to stop participating in the field these people control was a
> > very good thing to do. That simply enabled them to target the innovators more
> > easily. It seems that by removing ourselves from these forums has enabled the
> > nonlinear nfb field to begin to self organize and gain strength within its own
> > right. Do you see a time when you again involve yourself in those conferences
> > or do you think the nonlinear nfb approach is gaining enough momentum so that
> > they become increasingly unimportant.
> > John Thompson

  
    

John,

So here's the thing.  What they do, and what they present on, is either
something we already done (and have done for years) OR it's completely
irrelevant to what we do, meaning it simply isn't relevant.

So, for instance, now the big buzz is (apparently) z-score based training.  And
it's not bad, at least in some theoretical ways.  There are problems with it
though, esp in how it's actually implemented.  For one thing, a z-score is a
linear mathematical concept.  NLD/NDS mathematics work much better since we are
actually dealing with the CNS and it is clearly NLD/NDS.  But the other real
problem lies with the idea that there is an "ideal" central tendency for ALL
brains and that training needs to be oriented towards migrating EVERY brain back
towards that central tendency, wherever that brain happens to be.

It is a slight twist on the Lake Wobegone idea that "all of our children are
above average".  Most people are so seduced by Gaussian stats that they really
do believe that "average" means something important.  And, therefore, being
ABOVE average might be even better; so Peak Performance means being "above
average" rather than "at your personal optimal level".

A related issue is that it's really clear that the "norms" aren't useful, esp
not for the purpose of neurofeedback training.  At best they give very clumsy
"guides" for what might be useful for some severe deficits, but the truth is
that there simply isn't enough data to support those "guides" from the point of
view of real normative database statistics.  We're still probably 10 years away
--at best! -- from having that level of data collected, collated and analyzed in
meaningful ways.  And, even if we DID have that level of data analysis,
neurofeedback is done using different technology than the data that is collected
and submitted for QEEG-based analyses so there would still be a real question as
to how useful the QEEG-based conclusions would be when applied to fundamentally
different data (ie the data actually used during neurofeedback).

Similarly, "protocol-based" decision making is irrelevant to what we do.  Our
comprehensive, adaptive targeting "covers the waterfront" AND adapts itself to
the Client's real-time training data AS training happens.  So what choices are
needed?

So the overwhelming amount of information presented at those conferences is
really of no use whatsoever to how we do neurofeedback training.

Now let's turn the question around and ask can presenting what we do at those
conferences be useful to others?  And the answer to that is, most likely not at
all.  The real reason for that is that what we do can ONLY be done using
NeurOptimal.  No other system can work in the same way.  So what would others
learn?  Basically that they would need to replace their current equipment (or at
least extend it with a new purchase) and how much do you think others want to
hear that?  Esp if they've already invested heavily in an alternative approach,
and esp one that relies so much on expensive diagnostic or assessment
procedures?

It's just too cognitively dissonant.

That's a real shame IMO but "that's the way it is", to gloss Walter Cronkite.

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Valdeane W. Brown, Ph.D."
<valdeanebrown@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Interesting questions and the short answer is that those conferences are not
> only unimportant, in many ways they are irrelevant. And, yes, no longer
> participating in that arena has been a very good thing.
>
> val
>
>
> On 11/08/09 2:25 AM, "John Thompson" <forumnhtc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Val,
> > Invariable the shift will come because of the outstanding advantages of a
> > system such as NeurOptimal that works with process in this way. As
threatened
> > as the people are who have big investment in classical approaches they
cannot
> > continue to suppress , degrade or ignore the information coming out of
> > nonlinear approaches. After all the results speak for themselves and there
is
> > accumulating evidence of efficacy such that the growing mountain is becoming
> > visible. The  bigger it gets the harder it is to obscure with the mist of
> > deception and ignorance or divert people�s attention from it. That some
are
> > now claiming it as their own is perhaps an extension of pre-existing
> > attitudes. I guess it is somewhat satisfying to have Siegfried acknowledge
you
> > pioneering work in the nfb field.
> >
> > I think that to stop participating in the field these people control was a
> > very good thing to do. That simply enabled them to target the innovators
more
> > easily. It seems that by removing ourselves from these forums has enabled
the
> > nonlinear nfb field to begin to self organize and gain strength within its
own
> > right. Do you see a time when you again involve yourself in those
conferences
> > or do you think the nonlinear nfb approach is gaining enough momentum so
that
> > they become increasingly unimportant.
> > John Thompson

 
 

Val,
Invariable the shift will come because of the outstanding advantages of a system such as NeurOptimal that works with process in this way. As threatened as the people are who have big investment in classical approaches they cannot continue to suppress , degrade or ignore the information coming out of nonlinear approaches. After all the results speak for themselves and there is accumulating evidence of efficacy such that the growing mountain is becoming visible. The  bigger it gets the harder it is to obscure with the mist of deception and ignorance or divert people’s attention from it. That some are now claiming it as their own is perhaps an extension of pre-existing attitudes. I guess it is somewhat satisfying to have Siegfried acknowledge you pioneering work in the nfb field.
 
I think that to stop participating in the field these people control was a very good thing to do. That simply enabled them to target the innovators more easily. It seems that by removing ourselves from these forums has enabled the nonlinear nfb field to begin to self organize and gain strength within its own right. Do you see a time when you again involve yourself in those conferences or do you think the nonlinear nfb approach is gaining enough momentum so that they become increasingly unimportant.
John Thompson
 

From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2009 4:05 PM
To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: Sieg's recent newsletter

  

Yes, that is what's amazing. The same ideas that were "impossible" or "wouldn't work" etc are now being presented by those who said they weren't possible. And the ideas are being presented AS IF just discovered or just implemented.

Now of course I do think that the ideas themselves are the most important aspect of this and getting them "out there" to provide help to clients is what really concerns me. And it's still pretty amazing to watch the same process happening around it. And that is one of the major reasons that I stopped going to conferences. The truth is that we just don't need to go. Our system already is the easiest, safest and most comprehensive system around.

val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Ebright" <mail@...> wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> To a large extent this is actually what you, Val, came up with already
> 10 years ago if I am not wrong : 5-phase-model!
>
> I wonder if this new view of Sieg finds its way into the big
> biofeedback-list on yahoo... I remember EVERYBODY was trashing you on
> that list for years - saying pretty much of what Sieg says now.. J!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com> ] Im Auftrag von Valdeane W.
> Brown, Ph.D.
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. August 2009 12:00
> An: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com>
> Betreff: [neurofeedcommunity] Sieg's recent newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
> I continue to be amazes at how much Sieg gets right and, perhaps even
> more
> stunningly, what he gets wrong. It is real wonder how that conjunction
> occurs.
>
> In his latest newsletter Sieg does a good job (IMO) of summarizing a lot
> of
> the field. In particular he contextualizes what I would call "classical
> neurofeedback" fairly well and in doing so, does a pretty good job of
> stating a number of important limitations in that overall paradigm. He
> also
> does a fairly good job (again IMO) of summarizing a number of the
> divergences involved in the more innovative approaches, including ours,
> ROSHI and LENS, as well as his own. The problem is that he leaves out a
> lot
> of the story (and yes space limitations can be a real constraint) and
> that
> simply doesn't tell the truth on some other points. The whole thread can
> be
> seen at:
>
> http://www.eeginfo.com/newsletter/?p=432#more-432
>
> I've also posted a couple of notes to follow up to his original post.
>
> It is really interesting to watch how the field continues to "discover"
> what
> we originally did, but about 5 or more years later. I certainly
> appreciate
> the mention that Sieg makes of my complete abandonment of the classical
> paradigm. It is (again IMO) important to mention that and, since I've
> now
> withdrawn from presenting at what are called "the conferences" it would
> be
> easy for my name and Sue's to be completely forgotten. Thanks Sieg for
> the
> mention -- I do appreciate it. I would also appreciate you -- and others
> --
> telling the rest of the story, well really the rest of the stories, esp
> when
> the ideas of dynamic thresholding came from, what really CAN be done
> with
> Adaptive Gabor Transforms (esp in conjunction with Non-linear, Dynamical
> Control processes) and some others come into the conversation. Who
> knows,
> if that started happening, I might even go back and present at one of
> those
> events. Hey, stranger things have happened.... ;-)
>
> Really Sieg I do thank you for the mention in your newsletter. You
> really
> don't have to do it so it says a lot that you do.
>

  
    

Yes, that is what's amazing.  The same ideas that were "impossible" or "wouldn't
work" etc are now being presented by those who said they weren't possible.  And
the ideas are being presented AS IF just discovered or just implemented.

Now of course I do think that the ideas themselves are the most important aspect
of this and getting them "out there" to provide help to clients is what really
concerns me. And it's still pretty amazing to watch the same process happening
around it.  And that is one of the major reasons that I stopped going to
conferences.  The truth is that we just don't need to go.  Our system already is
the easiest, safest and most comprehensive system around.

val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Ebright" <mail@...> wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> To a large extent this is actually what you, Val, came up with already
> 10 years ago if I am not wrong : 5-phase-model!
>
> I wonder if this new view of Sieg finds its way into the big
> biofeedback-list on yahoo... I remember EVERYBODY was trashing you on
> that list for years - saying pretty much of what Sieg says now.. J!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Valdeane W.
> Brown, Ph.D.
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. August 2009 12:00
> An: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [neurofeedcommunity] Sieg's recent newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
> I continue to be amazes at how much Sieg gets right and, perhaps even
> more
> stunningly, what he gets wrong. It is real wonder how that conjunction
> occurs.
>
> In his latest newsletter Sieg does a good job (IMO) of summarizing a lot
> of
> the field. In particular he contextualizes what I would call "classical
> neurofeedback" fairly well and in doing so, does a pretty good job of
> stating a number of important limitations in that overall paradigm. He
> also
> does a fairly good job (again IMO) of summarizing a number of the
> divergences involved in the more innovative approaches, including ours,
> ROSHI and LENS, as well as his own. The problem is that he leaves out a
> lot
> of the story (and yes space limitations can be a real constraint) and
> that
> simply doesn't tell the truth on some other points. The whole thread can
> be
> seen at:
>
> http://www.eeginfo.com/newsletter/?p=432#more-432
>
> I've also posted a couple of notes to follow up to his original post.
>
> It is really interesting to watch how the field continues to "discover"
> what
> we originally did, but about 5 or more years later. I certainly
> appreciate
> the mention that Sieg makes of my complete abandonment of the classical
> paradigm. It is (again IMO) important to mention that and, since I've
> now
> withdrawn from presenting at what are called "the conferences" it would
> be
> easy for my name and Sue's to be completely forgotten. Thanks Sieg for
> the
> mention -- I do appreciate it. I would also appreciate you -- and others
> --
> telling the rest of the story, well really the rest of the stories, esp
> when
> the ideas of dynamic thresholding came from, what really CAN be done
> with
> Adaptive Gabor Transforms (esp in conjunction with Non-linear, Dynamical
> Control processes) and some others come into the conversation. Who
> knows,
> if that started happening, I might even go back and present at one of
> those
> events. Hey, stranger things have happened.... ;-)
>
> Really Sieg I do thank you for the mention in your newsletter. You
> really
> don't have to do it so it says a lot that you do.
>

I continue to be amazes at how much Sieg gets right and, perhaps even more
stunningly, what he gets wrong.  It is real wonder how that conjunction
occurs.

In his latest newsletter Sieg does a good job (IMO) of summarizing a lot of
the field.  In particular he contextualizes what I would call "classical
neurofeedback" fairly well and in doing so, does a pretty good job of
stating a number of important limitations in that overall paradigm.  He also
does a fairly good job (again IMO) of summarizing a number of the
divergences involved in the more innovative approaches, including ours,
ROSHI and LENS, as well as his own.  The problem is that he leaves out a lot
of the story (and yes space limitations can be a real constraint) and that
simply doesn't tell the truth on some other points.  The whole thread can be
seen at:

http://www.eeginfo.com/newsletter/?p=432#more-432

I've also posted a couple of notes to follow up to his original post.

It is really interesting to watch how the field continues to "discover" what
we originally did, but about 5 or more years later.  I certainly appreciate
the mention that Sieg makes of my complete abandonment of the classical
paradigm.  It is (again IMO) important to mention that and, since I've now
withdrawn from presenting at what are called "the conferences" it would be
easy for my name and Sue's to be completely forgotten.  Thanks Sieg for the
mention -- I do appreciate it.  I would also appreciate you -- and others --
telling the rest of the story, well really the rest of the stories, esp when
the ideas of dynamic thresholding came from, what really CAN be done with
Adaptive Gabor Transforms (esp in conjunction with Non-linear, Dynamical
Control processes) and some others come into the conversation.  Who knows,
if that started happening, I might even go back and present at one of those
events.  Hey, stranger things have happened....   ;-)

Really Sieg I do thank you for the mention in your newsletter.  You really
don't have to do it so it says a lot that you do.

By the way, one of my very young clients' gastroenterologists told his
mother that severe behavior problems are typical of children with
colitis.  The child has been given the antihistamine Singulaire with
wonderful effects on not only his gut, but his behavior (at least when
combined with neurofeedback and very strict attention to his diet).  And
another child, with rectification of asthma and sinusitis (Mom has made
major changes in the child's diet, including by the way acidophilus which
can, interestingly, be helpful with sinusitus) is doing wonderfully well
lately at school compared to only weeks ago.  Neurofeedback, nutrition,
(and a bit of EFT or neurofeedback when possible for the parents to help
them lower their own reactivity and PTSD from dealing with terrifyingly
out-of-control children, when I only the child is covered for my services)
have been combined for amazing improvements in behavior over a period of
only a few months.

Julie


On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:18:48 -0400, Raaymakers Molly
<molly.neuro@...> wrote:

> Yes, when i noted slowing brain function i was refering to how folks
> describe the observable clinical symptoms they feel such as lethargy,
> ADD, feeling mentally 'slow' as thoughts don't seem to connect as
> rapidly, mentally tasks take longer to complete.  I did not clarify this
> on the post. 
> I wasn't refering to the data/EEG as being impacted by speed, nor have i
> ever considered that was even possible...that seems a mute point; though
> i was not clear in stating this.  What i typically see is as you note an
> increase in CCAC measures (usually a significant increasing pattern
> across a period of time/sessions, which correlates to increasing symptom
> complaints during that time, as one would expect).  Within Western
> Michigan i seem to have an abundance of opportunity to capture these
> connections, as over the years I've been training with NF (67%-80%) of
> my clients' data increase and decrease in emergent variability during
> the same correlated seasonal periods (estimated tracking of my
> cases annually across the last 8 years).  Correlating symptoms
> vary within these clients,  yet the data patterns have been relatively
> consistent in changing towards less organized CCAC data with increased
> seasonal extrinsic effects; more organized CCAC
>  data as seasonal extrinsics minimize.  
>
> --- On Thu, 6/18/09, Val Brown <valdeanebrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Val Brown <valdeanebrown@...>
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: extrinsic variable
> To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 8:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Molly,
>
> While I'm sure that respiratory- related issues can serve as extrinsic
> constraints I wouldn't refer to the their effect as "slow<ing> brain
> function". It's not the the EEG "slows", although that may (or may not)
> be apparent in some ways of looking at the data. Rather, it's more that
> the emergent variability in the EEG is greatly increased and that occurs
> in a non-averaged, pseudo-random fashion. What appears as "slowing" of
> the EEG is one of the effects of the increased turbulence and emergent
> variability, not the inverse.
>
> val
>
> --- In neurofeedcommunity@ yahoogroups. com, molly.neuro@ ... wrote:
>>
>> Respiratory is the and I say that strongly THE biggest extrinsic
>> variable I see slow brain function. I have some prior postings I'll dig
>> up and send to you later on with more detail.
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Shue <kshue@...>
>>
>> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:44:21
>> To: <neurofeedcommunity@ yahoogroups. com>
>> Subject: Re: [neurofeedcommunity ] extrinsic variable
>>
>>
>> Hi Molly:
>>
>> Perhaps this is more of a Zengar list question, but I'm wondering if you
>> might share more about what you look for/see in the data as indicators
>> of extrinsic variables?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> molly.neuro@ ... wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I am able to consistently troubleshoot extrinsic variables, which I
>> > find do not stand out as clearly within data generated and displayed
>> > on other softwares.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2189 - Release Date: 06/20/09
06:15:00

Molly,

While I'm sure that respiratory-related issues can serve as extrinsic
constraints I wouldn't refer to the their effect as "slow<ing> brain function". 
It's not the the EEG "slows", although that may (or may not) be apparent in some
ways of looking at the data.  Rather, it's more that the emergent variability in
the EEG is greatly increased and that occurs in a non-averaged, pseudo-random
fashion.  What appears as "slowing" of the EEG  is one of the effects of the
increased turbulence and emergent variability, not the inverse.

val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, molly.neuro@... wrote:
>
> Respiratory is the and I say that strongly THE biggest extrinsic variable I
see slow brain function.  I have some prior postings I'll dig up and send to you
later on with more detail.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Shue <kshue@...>
>
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:44:21
> To: <neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [neurofeedcommunity] extrinsic variable
>
>
> Hi Molly:
>
> Perhaps this is more of a Zengar list question, but I'm wondering if you
> might share more about what you look for/see in the data as indicators
> of extrinsic variables?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Karen
>
> molly.neuro@... wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I am able to consistently troubleshoot extrinsic variables, which I
> > find do not stand out as clearly within data generated and displayed
> > on other softwares.
> >
>

I would like to take an opportunity to welcome our new members- there
have been quite a few of you recently!
And Penny- I was thrilled to see you join, as NeurOptimal™ gains
ground in the golf world (we are currently working with CPGA tour
players). Penny Pulz is a 2-time LPGA champion, and was named a Top 50
Teacher of the Year in 2004 by Golf for Women Magazine.
Welcome Penny!
Sue
Susan Cheshire Brown Ph.D.
www.zengar.com

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

...

I am able to consistently troubleshoot extrinsic variables, which I find do not stand out as clearly within data generated and displayed on other softwares.

Hello,
I do not qualify as someone who has used other systems.  I can only
testify that my clients continue to get positive
results from Zengar... I'm personally distrustful of ANY system that
introduces something into the brain.   I respect
and appreciate the non-invasive nature of Zengar.   That fact is also a
source of reassurance to my clients...

Michael Andes, LMSW
Ann Arbor, MI

On May 27, 2009, at 8:36 PM, michfrosch wrote:

>
>
> Hi, I have done alot of research on neurofeedback and I keep returning
> to the zengar Institute. I do not currently do neurofeedback but It
> only makes sense to go with zengar. my question is: Who has used other
> systems and is currently using zengar and would you go with any other
> system at this point?
>
>
>
---

Michael Andes

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Hi, I have done alot of research on neurofeedback and I keep returning to the
zengar Institute. I do not currently do neurofeedback but It only makes sense to
go with zengar. my question is: Who has used other systems and is currently
using zengar and would you go with any other system at this point?