feedback

[Guest guest]

Kit, What did you think of Riboforce? .

[Guest guest]

Hiya Kit, thanks for the feedback on Riboforce. I bought some a while ago but it's still sitting in my cupboard. I'm nervous to use it because of my BP.

.

[Guest guest]

,

I'd love to see the research that comparatively demonstrated that 3-D feedback actually reduced training times! In fact I'd love to see the data that demonstrated that ANY changes in technology actually reduced training times. The methodological problems with designing and carrying out such a study are immense. Surely, if I had 3D feedback or used the mean of the medians or used real-time DOS-based feedback, I'd be inclined to present that mine was better than anyone else's. But as for proof, I've never seen it.

I think your colleagues are confusing perhaps EEG driving with feedback. I suppose that when driving the EEG with AVS, there might be more effect from using multiple inputs. But all you are doing with neurofeedback is giving the brain a pulse-meter to tell it when it is in the training range. Lubar used multiple conditions in his work with ADD where the client was reading or writing or doing math, only hearing the feedback. He measured the effects of everything he could, and I doubt he would have used that technique if he found it slowed down results.

So my best suggestion would be to answer the question thus:

"No, actually having a client who is blind or deaf actually SPEEDS UP the change process, since there is only half the competing sensory stimulation and the client is especially attuned to the feedback coming in from that channel which is functioning."

Pete

-----Original Message-----From: Dr. Rocatti, M.D. [mailto:drrocatti@...]Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:54 PMQeegDataSwitch ; Subject: Feedback

Hi Pete

Yesterday I sent a mail about the feedback process for Blind and for deaf , as a result of a question I received form a Phisiotherapyst while visiting a Coma Patient.

I got 2 answers which I really appreciate from and other EEG friend.

But that answers are not enough for a Intensive Care Unit & the Neurological Staff (That are really interested but want data)I explain the History of NFK, Sterman Cats SMR , ADD, Siezures induced by Phenilhidracine, and TBI & of course M,Ayers in COma II.

I cant give a "magical answer" like the ones I recieved. (Sorry, my friends)

Is there any neuroanatomical and neuroiphisiological explanation for the Audio & Visual feedback effect, and what happens if you don't give audio or dont give Video???

I have read that the 3 D Video feedback gives more % of rewards than the 2d Image feedback and accelerates ADD treatments, that means ADD clients need less sessions. On this issue there is not a neuroanatomical or neurophisiological explanation, but there is a Statistic studied done with % of ADD clients with 2D Visual Reward and 3D Visual Reward. This are facts that are suitable to present in the scientific way, at least.

For example:

If you are training in the 2 box system of BM 2.0.

You have the visual feedback of the boxes, you see the enhancement of Beta in the pink color square and the Lobeta in the green square.

You have ONLY ONE SOUND FEEDBACK: THE REWARD.

But if you place Pitch Feedback you will hear a sound for Beta and SMR when are above the Threshold and Hibeta and Theta when are Below the Threshold. This are 4 sounds at least and at different moments , THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER. If you use stereo earphones there will be 2 hibeta and 2 Theta´s.

ARE THERE NEUROPHISIOLOGICAL PROOFS that the brain "understands" this "mess" of sounds ?

I cant even think how will work Sterman reward system with 6 active training sites!

Ciao

____________________________________________________ IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

[Guest guest]

Thanks Pete!

-- RE: Feedback

,

I'd love to see the research that comparatively demonstrated that 3-D feedback actually reduced training times! In fact I'd love to see the data that demonstrated that ANY changes in technology actually reduced training times. The methodological problems with designing and carrying out such a study are immense. Surely, if I had 3D feedback or used the mean of the medians or used real-time DOS-based feedback, I'd be inclined to present that mine was better than anyone else's. But as for proof, I've never seen it.

I think your colleagues are confusing perhaps EEG driving with feedback. I suppose that when driving the EEG with AVS, there might be more effect from using multiple inputs. But all you are doing with neurofeedback is giving the brain a pulse-meter to tell it when it is in the training range. Lubar used multiple conditions in his work with ADD where the client was reading or writing or doing math, only hearing the feedback. He measured the effects of everything he could, and I doubt he would have used that technique if he found it slowed down results.

So my best suggestion would be to answer the question thus:

"No, actually having a client who is blind or deaf actually SPEEDS UP the change process, since there is only half the competing sensory stimulation and the client is especially attuned to the feedback coming in from that channel which is functioning."

Pete

-----Original Message-----From: Dr. Rocatti, M.D. [mailto:drrocatti@...]Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:54 PMQeegDataSwitch ; Subject: Feedback

Hi Pete

Yesterday I sent a mail about the feedback process for Blind and for deaf , as a result of a question I received form a Phisiotherapyst while visiting a Coma Patient.

I got 2 answers which I really appreciate from and other EEG friend.

But that answers are not enough for a Intensive Care Unit & the Neurological Staff (That are really interested but want data)I explain the History of NFK, Sterman Cats SMR , ADD, Siezures induced by Phenilhidracine, and TBI & of course M,Ayers in COma II.

I cant give a "magical answer" like the ones I recieved. (Sorry, my friends)

Is there any neuroanatomical and neuroiphisiological explanation for the Audio & Visual feedback effect, and what happens if you don't give audio or dont give Video???

I have read that the 3 D Video feedback gives more % of rewards than the 2d Image feedback and accelerates ADD treatments, that means ADD clients need less sessions. On this issue there is not a neuroanatomical or neurophisiological explanation, but there is a Statistic studied done with % of ADD clients with 2D Visual Reward and 3D Visual Reward. This are facts that are suitable to present in the scientific way, at least.

For example:

If you are training in the 2 box system of BM 2.0.

You have the visual feedback of the boxes, you see the enhancement of Beta in the pink color square and the Lobeta in the green square.

You have ONLY ONE SOUND FEEDBACK: THE REWARD.

But if you place Pitch Feedback you will hear a sound for Beta and SMR when are above the Threshold and Hibeta and Theta when are Below the Threshold. This are 4 sounds at least and at different moments , THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER. If you use stereo earphones there will be 2 hibeta and 2 Theta´s.

ARE THERE NEUROPHISIOLOGICAL PROOFS that the brain "understands" this "mess" of sounds ?

I cant even think how will work Sterman reward system with 6 active training sites!

Ciao

[Guest guest]

In reply to the class and discussion format (if it isn't too late!) -

I too have felt like there is so little time to learn and

discuss so much, and I would also enjoy continuing in the fall. Yes,

it would be nice to have some case discussion during the class time -

but I wouldn't have wanted to miss any of the material we have covered

thus far. I do enjoy doing these cases by email as it gives me the

opportunity to use references at home & school that in class I would

otherwise not be able to access. (It has also forced me to log on

much more that I am accustomed, me being a Luddite sort.)

Speaking of case discussions, I'd like to follow up on the IBS

case. I must confess that I am a bit dense when it comes to miasms

(although in class everything seems to make sense). I find myself

wondering if it is " too soon " to address the miasm per se (albeit the

numbers chosen by Dr. Thom definitely address the large intestine)

when it seems that his condition has >such< a nervous system

component.

What I mean is, it seems to me the manifestation of the miasm

is currently in the NS. I am thinking this b/c things were almost OK

w/ fiber suppl till pt moved to high stress environ & job - ie, the

colon sx are dt nervous system. Is it possible that using numbers for

the miasm -

and I do realize one of the number is for GI & NS - can cause a bit of

an aggravation?

I am still a student clinician and so don't have the

experience and confidence that some of you might. I worry a tiny bit

about that such a pt (who seemingly already has a problem sticking to

a tx plan) would react badly to an aggravation rather than being

saying WHOOPEE!! about it. Well, the answer lies in the follow up

visit if nothing else. Thanks for letting me ramble! - J. Wu

[Guest guest]

In response to IBS case question.

I agree that the NS is central to the case (and recomended NS numbers first month) but DT went with GI numbers. I don't think GI numbers would aggravate even though they would include some miasimatic tx. The tx would address the main complaint in the GI and provide enough primary drainage to avoid aggravation with the added bonus of beginning to address the underlying miasm. (Remember also that BTGs are crucial to avoiding aggravations by ensuring opening of the primary emuncturies).

#24 is very important in this tx because it links the GI and the NS. You could chose to start with either NS emphasis or GI emphasis and move to the other as the case develops. I believe the patient would see very good results both ways.

Keivan Jinnah

[Guest guest]

Dear allI am planning to buy phantom head, jaws and teeth from www.navadha.com. Could you please give me the feedback if anyone bought materials from thisRegardsAditya