What's New in Neurofeedback
A Monthly Summary of News and Events

Vol. 10 No. 2 - February 2007

This newsletter is sponsored by EEG Spectrum Intl Inc,
a leader in providing clinical service and training
professionals. Past issues available at
http://start.eegspectrum.com/Newsletter/
To subscribe or cancel, see newsletter's end.
Opinions related in this newsletter reflect
author's only. Copyright (C) 2007 by EEG Spectrum
Intl, Inc. or David Kaiser. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------

Announcements - News
In the Spotlight - Too Infinite a Mind
News & Reviews - Books & journal papers
Events & Locations - Conferences, Courses
Last Word - Dark Ages of Neurofeedback
--------------------------------------------------

Announcements

What's New in Neurofeedback enters 10th year, the world's longest-running
continuously published webzine dedicated to mental health (Jan 1998-2007).

* Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors
* Mild brain injuries linked to sleep disorders
* Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate
* Brain Can Learn Fear By Seeing Others' Fears
* Playing Music Makes You Smart
* Technology Review: Fueling Brain Research
* Can a brain scan prove you're telling the truth?
* Quiz: How healthy is your brain?
* Boosting Brain Power May Be Steps Away

All links at: news.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Brain_Research
--------------------------------------------------

In the Spotlight

Too Infinite a Mind

All things that are even said to be consist of a one
and a many, and have in their nature a conjunction of
limit and unlimitedness - Plato

Except for a handful of midline structures, every
region of the brain has a partner, a homologue that
performs a similar but complementary function. The
homologue exists in the other hemisphere of the brain
and is highly connected with its partner, perhap more
connected to this cross-town rival than to any other
structure on its own side of town (intrahemispheric).
One theory of homologues is that they provide context
for processing content, the surround that makes sense
of the middle. Perhaps. Or perhaps they work in
opposition to each other to disambiguate incoming
sensory information. For instance, the left primary
auditory cortex is specialized for processing
phonemes (verbal sounds) and its homologue in the
right processes environmental sounds and music, so at
any time the words and music can be understood
separately and together. Or the words and tone in
speech. In QEEG analysis we have eight homologue
site-pairs using the 10-20 electrode position system:
F7 is with F8, F3 with F4, P3 with P4, etc. At AAPB
this March we saw how damage (seizure focus) or
disconnection (callosotomy) at one of the site-pairs
produced energy disregulation at the other. Why this
is the case is a matter of neuroscientific
investigation, although my longstanding conception of
the mind in terms of dimensionality may shed some
light on the matter: what it means to have a
dysfunction partner?

The role of homologues recently became a personal
concern. We analyzed my autistic son's EEG at one of
my workshops and determined quite clearly that he had
excessive delta activity in his right temporal lobe.
Cortical areas produce delta in isolation, when they
are without substantial subcortical (white matter)
innervation. Delta activity is normal for an infant's
brain, given its limited connectivity, but not for a
9 year old's, which makes me suspect that this part
of his brain never ripened, never connected
subcortically. It remained infantile and any
governance over the left temporal region (via the
anterior commissure or anterior section of the corpus
callosum) is minimal at best. Which means his left
temporal lobe is developing alone, in isolation,
unchecked by a partner, feral. While his right
remains infantile, perhaps even bullied into
submission by the governance of a mature homologue on
the left.

It took me many years to finally get the nature of
the left and right hemisphere function straight in my
head. I knew the data and dozens of
characterizations, but I always conceived the right
hemisphere as infinite, holding all the varieties of
personal experience in tow, while the left hemisphere
was focal and therefore infinitesmal in its aspect. I
also knew that the left brain was expressive, the
right receptive, so I imagined the universe, as
reflected by the marvelous 3-lb version we carry
within our heads, was a creation derived from the
freedom of the infinitesmal scurrying about unhinged
by relational constraint (being so small) within the
infinite. In other words agency came about from the
small acting upon the large, the nothing freely
skipping about within everything. Boy was I wrong!
One day I tripped and forgot to fall...mentally, that
is, and the proper arrangement fell into place.
Reverse what I just said: The left acts because it is
infinite and the right receives because it is
nothing, i.e., infinitesmal in nature. Suddenly the
split brain patients who claim to experience no
change in their sense of self after a callosotomy
make sense. We speak from the left brain and it's
easy to see how the infinite wouldn't miss the
infinitesmal, but not vice versa. The split brain
data should have made me understand this from day
one.

Georg Cantor was a mathematician who lived a century
ago who understood infinity better than the rest of
us. He broke from the Aristotlean tradition and
conceive of some infinities as closed entities unto
themselves, such as the set of natural numbers, and
in so doing invented transfinite sets. Transfinity is
based on the premise that not all infinities are
created equal. Some infinities are larger than
others. The set of rational numbers (fractions,
integers) is infinite yet smaller than the set of
real numbers (those decimal numbers without end). No
two rational numbers can be close enough that a real
number cannot squirm between them like a smaller
cuter younger brother. It is this concept of
scaleable infinities which helps me understand
autism, my son's condition. In a nutshell, I believe
he has too infinite a mind. That is, on the left
temporal lobe he hasn't joined our infinity but
staked out his own. Think of the mind as a rug
extended across an infinite hallway with doors at
either end. We suppose to cover the hallway floor but
his rug is curled up behind the far door and leaves
bare much of the floor at the other end.

Physicists say that nearly all of the matter of the
universe is dark, 96% according to some estimates.
Dark matter fails to emit enough electromagnetic
radiation to be detected directly but its
gravitational influence can be infered by the shape
and motions of galaxies. It is the missing mass of
the universe and it is all around us and even inside
of us. We can think of dark energy and matter as that
which is behind the hallway doors. It is that realm
from which we pull when we create. We draw out dark
energy (left brain creation or thoughts) or dark
matter (right brain thoughts) and make it light. Dark
energy are those infinities larger than our own; dark
matter nothingness deeper than out own. Geniuses like
Cantor expand our rug and pull much of the darkness
into the hall, creating more light, and here we all
sit, except my son. His rug does not cover the floor.
Perhaps only a small fraction is left bare, a percent
or less than ours, but it is enough to throw off his
relations with the world.

Here are the four dimensions currently established in
ourselves (universe) posed as four questions:

Are we alone? Yes and no.
Are we centered? Yes and no.
Are we everything? Yes and no.
Are we constant? Yes and no.

That singularity (alone) began the process, according
to my reckoning, before the infinite (everything) is
intriguing, if true. That the "center" of the
universe is everywhere at once spatially and
temporally means also livingly as well. We are each
its center. How could it be otherwise. A beautiful
way to live one's life.

But back to my son. The temporal lobe is where we
finalize our relation to the world. We store in the
medial portion and relate at the pole. Here we create
two selves, a universal one and a unique
autobiographical one. So my son falters in the
autobiographical creation of a self (right temporal),
and fails to say enough "no" to the question of
constancy. His too infinite mind on the left
(constant -- yes! yes! yes!) must be curbed, but only
the zero can curb infinity.

Besides delta-downtraining, perhaps some
autobiography training will help strength this area.
Each day in school he should repeat what happened to
him that day, and what happened to others around him,
and build a story of his life. Like other autistics
who hate routine changes, he needs to accept the
inconstancy of life and not fear it. How else are we
move on to the fifth question....

-DK
--------------------------------------------------

News & Reviews

NEW BOOKS

Rapid Review Neuroscience
by James Weyhenmeyer, Eve A. Gallman
Learn about the most important structure of the 21st century.
--www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0323022618/eegspectrum

Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
by F de Waal, S Macedo, J Ober (Eds)
Illustrates the evolution of morality through primatology data, relevant to
pleasure, addiction,
sociality. --www.amazon.com/ exec/obidos/ASIN/00691124/eegspectrum

Alcohol Abuse Revolution: Complementary and
Alternative ...
by Donna J. Cornett
Alternative interventions to reduce alcohol craving and consumption are
described.
--www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976372029/eegspectrum

Depression (Key Diseases Series)
by JL Levenson (Editor)
Depression in the medically ill, diagnosing and management of depression and
other practice
guidelines. --www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943126851/eegspectrum

----

JOURNAL PAPERS

Epilepsy from extended treatment with electroconvulsive therapy. : Describes a
handful of patients who developed epilepsy during extended courses of ECT.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17185006

Heritability of EEG Spectra in a Sib-pair Population. : Heritabilities of
bipolar EEG spectral power ranged from 0.10 to 0.63 in 38 electrode-pairs,
monopolar from 0.23 to 0.68 in 19 electrodes, in six frequency bands.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17180712

In vivo mapping of functional connectivity in neurotransmitter : Mapped
functionally connected brain areas responding to pharmacological challenge.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17188903

Independent Component Analysis in the Study of Focal Seizures. : ICA separated
components of ictal onset from propagated activity in focal seizures.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17143142

Magnocellular advantage in visual impairments in neurodevelopmental and
psychiatric disorders. : Abnormal visual information processing in
neuropsychiatric conditions may reflect dominance of magnocellular pathway in
driving cortical involvement.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17141311

Neurobiology of substance and behavioral addictions. : Neurobiology of both
forms of addictions (chemical and behavioral) may provide insight for prevention
and treatment strategies.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17146406

Gray matter changes in autism- social and repetitive behavior. : Gray matter was
enlarged in medial frontal & temporal gyri as well as sensorimotor cortex.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17166273

Awareness of deficits in traumatic brain injury : Low self-awareness scoring TBI
patients exhibited disinhibition, interpersonal problems and more difficulties
in total competency.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17166302

Spontaneous magnetoencephalographic activity in OCD : Prefrontal and temporal
cortices were linked to pathogenesis of OCD.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17156764

EEG abnormalities in adolescent males with AD/HD. : ADHD subjects showed lower
relative beta activity in posterior sites during eyes closed rest.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17166762

Alcohol and marijuana use during adolescence on hippocampal volume and
asymmetry. : Hippocampal asymmetry and left hippocampal volumes were associated
with adolescent heavy drinking.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17169528

----------

Events & Locations

Upcoming Courses

A Pathway to Brain Regulation - Neurofeedback helps improve
neuroregulation. It's used by health care professionals for ADHD,
depression, anxiety disorders, LD, mood disorders, and behavioral
problems. This 4-day course, Neurofeedback in a Clinical Practice,
provides the basis for using Neurofeedback clinically. - *28 CEs

4-Day Comprehensive Course Dates (subject to change)


* St Louis MO Apr 12-15
* Boston MA May 3-6
* Glendale CA May 17-20
* NYC May 31-Jun 1
* Washington DC Jun 21-24
* Denver CO Jul 12-15
* Atlanta GA Jul 26-29

Our course is a hands-on experience right from the start. Attendees
consistently say this format is a very good way to learn
Neurofeedback.

"Neurofeedback should be viewed as one of the three essential or
primary forms of intervention - psychotherapy, psychopharmacology,
and Neurofeedback. In my experience, neurofeedback is every bit as
important and powerful as the other two forms of treatment." - Dr.
Laurence Hirshberg of Brown University Medical School, a
psychologist specializing in Developmental Disorders and Autism.

Contact Karie Kramer, our training coordinator, for more information
818-789-3456 ext 847 or see www.eegspectrum.com/ Training

*EEG Spectrum International, Inc. is approved by the APA to offer
continuing education to psychologists. ESII maintains responsibility
for the program.

------------------------------------------------------------
Conferences for Neurofeedback Clinicians & Researchers

CONFERENCE LOCATION DATES

SABA- www.skiltopo.com/saba Avalon CA May 2006
------------------------------------------------------------


Last Word

Last Word

The Dark Ages of Neurofeedback, revisited

The field of neuroregulation and the field of
psychiatry share many common elements -- similar
patient population, similar office protocol, similar
practitioners -- and recently I was reminded of how
they both share something which weakens them --
conceptual pluralism. Both neuroregulation and
psychiatry suffer from conceptual pluralism, the lack
of a single overarching paradigm to unite
investigation. When paradigmic hegemony is absent, as
it is in these fields, competing and often
incompatible models coexist. In such an environment,
any theory, however irrational, can demand equal
attention with more established ideas. And they do.

Conceptual pluralism may be a necessary stage of all
disciplines. In fact the existence of clearly defined
models competing against each other may be a positive
thing. It may reflect a necessary stage, the passage
from formative upstart to mature science. But such
competition is just as likely to hinder advancement.
Too much competition can keep everyone in the dark,
out of the know, with too much interpretation spread
thinly across too little data. A field can wallow in
its own Dark Age. With too many Kings. Too many
Popes.

Paradigms force us to make decisions, early and
often. Paradigms drive scientific and clinical
investigation; facts are collected selectively,
studies devised entirely to refute or support one
aspect of a model. The opposite is happening in
(neuro)psychiatry today. Data are not being gathered
selectively, but indiscriminately, atheoretically.
Nearly every reasonable study from the past 30 years
is being re-run nowadays, with an fMRI machine
attached to the project. Will new insights be gained
from all the billions of dollars spent? Had those
resources been applied more cleverly, more
discriminately, who knows? Neuroscience has always
suffers from being data heavy, model weak.

Competition is at the root of creativity. In the
middle half of the 20th century, two promising
theories competed for the hearts and minds of
physicists-cum-cosmologists: either the universe
started with a Big Bang or it never had a start,
always was, and always would be in a Steady State.
They were opposing theories, contrary to the
exclusion of the other. Whenever and wherever
possible, data was collected and technology was
developed in order to refute the other model.
Sometimes it's not clear what data is relevant in the
real world, what observations should be made. But
with competition one's eyes are often widely opened,
one's priorities become crystal clear. So was the
case with the young field of cosmology. And from this
structured antagonism arose many unanticipated
bounties, from advances in radio telescopy to the
theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.

Yet too much competition can bring on melee, a
free-for-all, and the subsequent state of chaos and
anarchy. Reviewing the upcoming SNR conference, the
list of speakers and disparate philosophies behind
their talks, I was reminded of a team of horses
strapped together, all sweating at the bit, all
pulling in every direction at once. The cart may
lurch out of the muck every moment or so, but in
which direction is anyone's guess. It has been 30
years since SMR conditioning was invented (or was it
discovered?) and it seems like now it is the best of
times and the worst of times. Everyone thinks they
have the answer, everyone's technique and experience
outtrumps all comers. This field does not have a
single voice as some do, but instead makes a
cacophony, a jarring, rarely attractive sound to the
outside world. Can this be solve? Or is this
unresolvable? Will brain sciences forever be like
sausage or the law: to appreciate them, avoid
attending their creation?

So what can be done? What might speed the process
from gawky adolescent endeavor to mature and respect
discipline?

We need head-to-head comparisons, to repeat Dick
Stark's mantra -- a tournament, a series of jousts or
contests enacted through edited books. In each edited
volume, two models of protocol selection go head to
head, lance to lance, study against study. Dedicate
half a dozen chapters to each. All other contending
theories wait on the sidelines for the next contest.
It's a runoff election. The winner of the first
contest is paired with the next most promising
challenger in the next volume, etc. Like any fair
contest we allow rematches, especially when past
outcomes are unclear or new data demand it. Very
quickly we should be able to sort this thing out.

We might compare first behavioral/symptomatic models
of protocol selection compared to EEG-based protocol
selection (EEG normalization), and let the better
model win! Who knows? We may have a mature scientific
discipline on our hands in no time.

DK (original from August 2001)
----end--