Guest guest Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post.I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me.I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. `My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. Here’s what I think is going on: I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” that would allow me to side step the decision process. So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best.Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. Goldring, PhDCounseling & Psychotherapy40 County RoadNorth Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 ,Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the workshops we did at your place on the Cape and have found your participation on the list to be positive and useful.It's interesting that you had a personal experience based on the TLC in your first session when I was staying with you. Trained (per the assessment) to reduce fast activity in the right-rear quadrant and slept through the night that night for the first time in years, per your report. But your intellectual self couldn't accept the theoretical " shortcomings " of the TLC 1. The standard TLC covers 10 QEEG channels, and the optional sites take you up to the same 18 channels a Q uses. Practically, however, looking at the front, back, center, midline and sides presents--per a number of comments posted on the list here over the past few days--a picture that is very close to what a full QEEG provides. It's either more efficient (from my way of seeing it) or limited (per yours). 2. The inability to measure coherences among all sites in all 1-frequency bands is surely a deficit in the TLC relative to a Q for a small number of clients. Of course Bob Thatcher decided that gathering 2 channels at a time with a Brainmaster provided data that allowed him to compare coherences among all sites, even those which were gathered 8-10 minutes apart in time, with his QEEG database. I choose not to accept that finding, so we stick with using the coherences among homologous sites and in functional frequency bands rather than individual frequencies. In my experience the macro levels of high or low coherences in fast or slow frequencies identifies the great majority of the key issues that affect training results. 3. As for the argument that the TLC doesn't use " normative " databases, I think I covered my rationale against using " norms " in the areas of brain activation and human behavior a few days ago in the email you referenced. To me, the proof is in the practice. I'm sure there are people who have done the TLC and switched to QEEG and found they got much better results. I wouldn't generally hear from those people, I suppose. But since I work with people every day whose experience is the opposite--that they are able to select training options much more quickly and effectively with the TLC, I'm happy to let those who prefer the more complex tool use it. As you may recall, my preparation for NF is not exactly a classical one. I managed to avoid getting a clinical degree (though I managed mental health services for 15 years and read a lot about the various approaches). Some of my best friends are psychotherapists. But my BA is in creative writing (learned a lot about entering peak creative states) and my MBA is in Finance & Economics. Those are very data-oriented ways of looking at chaotic complex systems and trying to make sense of them My practical experience was going into hospitals that were in serious trouble and trying to " turn them around " --which turned out to be a lot like working with an individual in his/her support system. Implementing changes in either case involves finding a path more consistent with current realities, testing it and then getting the variouis parties to adopt and support it. My supervised experience with NF started with learning from Lubar, who introduced me to the concept of stable energy patterns in the brain, and his wife Judith who stressed the importance of dealing with the homeostatic systems surrounding every client. Having read Virginia Satir a couple decades earlier, I saw how they fit together. Then I spent a bit over a year being supervised by a Ph.D. behaviorist--where I learned the importance of focusing on outcomes--a family systems Ph.D.--where I reinforced my belief on the importance of dealing with homeostasis--and a psychiatrist who taught me a lot about neurotransmitters. But these approaches, which they considered to be very different, were easily integratable in the way I saw the world, and they formed the foundation for the TLC approach. Unlike your experience with the Othmers and others, mine was that I learned something from each of them (including Val Brown, Len Ochs, Marvin Sams, Sterman, Lubar and others) that didn't contradict what I already knew. Rather I begin identifying the types of problems or clients that got better results with the various different approachs and trying to integrate them into a whole picture. Glad to hear that you have found something that works for you and your clients, and I continue to wish you the best!PeteThe point of view that ended up confusing you to the point of departure is very consistent with that of economists who look at tens of thousands of individual data points, become obsessed with the " scientific " description of all those trees, and totally miss forests as large as a complete meltdown of huge economies--even when they are actually in process. I prefer those economists who looked at overall trends in the light of historical experience and said, " wow, it looks like things are going to get BAD in the next 1-3 years unless one of these steps is taken. " Big-time beta processors (I still remember your EEG from those years back) do struggle mightily with overviews and practical application of patterns, because their brains only see details (Ben Bernanke comes to mind, reassuring everyone right up to the collapse that housing problems would have little or no effect on the overall economy). -- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post. I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. Here’s what I think is going on: I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” that would allow me to side step the decision process. So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best. Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. Goldring, PhDCounseling & Psychotherapy40 County RoadNorth Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 ,Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the workshops we did at your place on the Cape and have found your participation on the list to be positive and useful.It's interesting that you had a personal experience based on the TLC in your first session when I was staying with you. Trained (per the assessment) to reduce fast activity in the right-rear quadrant and slept through the night that night for the first time in years, per your report. But your intellectual self couldn't accept the theoretical " shortcomings " of the TLC 1. The standard TLC covers 10 QEEG channels, and the optional sites take you up to the same 18 channels a Q uses. Practically, however, looking at the front, back, center, midline and sides presents--per a number of comments posted on the list here over the past few days--a picture that is very close to what a full QEEG provides. It's either more efficient (from my way of seeing it) or limited (per yours). 2. The inability to measure coherences among all sites in all 1-frequency bands is surely a deficit in the TLC relative to a Q for a small number of clients. Of course Bob Thatcher decided that gathering 2 channels at a time with a Brainmaster provided data that allowed him to compare coherences among all sites, even those which were gathered 8-10 minutes apart in time, with his QEEG database. I choose not to accept that finding, so we stick with using the coherences among homologous sites and in functional frequency bands rather than individual frequencies. In my experience the macro levels of high or low coherences in fast or slow frequencies identifies the great majority of the key issues that affect training results. 3. As for the argument that the TLC doesn't use " normative " databases, I think I covered my rationale against using " norms " in the areas of brain activation and human behavior a few days ago in the email you referenced. To me, the proof is in the practice. I'm sure there are people who have done the TLC and switched to QEEG and found they got much better results. I wouldn't generally hear from those people, I suppose. But since I work with people every day whose experience is the opposite--that they are able to select training options much more quickly and effectively with the TLC, I'm happy to let those who prefer the more complex tool use it. As you may recall, my preparation for NF is not exactly a classical one. I managed to avoid getting a clinical degree (though I managed mental health services for 15 years and read a lot about the various approaches). Some of my best friends are psychotherapists. But my BA is in creative writing (learned a lot about entering peak creative states) and my MBA is in Finance & Economics. Those are very data-oriented ways of looking at chaotic complex systems and trying to make sense of them My practical experience was going into hospitals that were in serious trouble and trying to " turn them around " --which turned out to be a lot like working with an individual in his/her support system. Implementing changes in either case involves finding a path more consistent with current realities, testing it and then getting the variouis parties to adopt and support it. My supervised experience with NF started with learning from Lubar, who introduced me to the concept of stable energy patterns in the brain, and his wife Judith who stressed the importance of dealing with the homeostatic systems surrounding every client. Having read Virginia Satir a couple decades earlier, I saw how they fit together. Then I spent a bit over a year being supervised by a Ph.D. behaviorist--where I learned the importance of focusing on outcomes--a family systems Ph.D.--where I reinforced my belief on the importance of dealing with homeostasis--and a psychiatrist who taught me a lot about neurotransmitters. But these approaches, which they considered to be very different, were easily integratable in the way I saw the world, and they formed the foundation for the TLC approach. Unlike your experience with the Othmers and others, mine was that I learned something from each of them (including Val Brown, Len Ochs, Marvin Sams, Sterman, Lubar and others) that didn't contradict what I already knew. Rather I begin identifying the types of problems or clients that got better results with the various different approachs and trying to integrate them into a whole picture. Glad to hear that you have found something that works for you and your clients, and I continue to wish you the best!PeteThe point of view that ended up confusing you to the point of departure is very consistent with that of economists who look at tens of thousands of individual data points, become obsessed with the " scientific " description of all those trees, and totally miss forests as large as a complete meltdown of huge economies--even when they are actually in process. I prefer those economists who looked at overall trends in the light of historical experience and said, " wow, it looks like things are going to get BAD in the next 1-3 years unless one of these steps is taken. " Big-time beta processors (I still remember your EEG from those years back) do struggle mightily with overviews and practical application of patterns, because their brains only see details (Ben Bernanke comes to mind, reassuring everyone right up to the collapse that housing problems would have little or no effect on the overall economy). -- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post. I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. Here’s what I think is going on: I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” that would allow me to side step the decision process. So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best. Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. Goldring, PhDCounseling & Psychotherapy40 County RoadNorth Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 is using the same system I use, Jeff's system. The only problem I have had with it is when my the central heater goes on and it effects how long it takes a client to reach base line before starting the movie. Jeff's system seems much easier to use with much less glitches than other HEG systems based on stories I have heard. Bruce Re: Valediction Liz,I assume is using Jeff Carmen's system directly from him. That's not the same as the pIR Pendant issues that I was speaking of. Thought Technology also uses pIR and their system is reputed to work quite well.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Me <drmargoshes@...> wrote: , It was very interesting to read your farewell post. However, it made me think of the Beatles song that goes "you say goodbye, and I say hello." Your voice of reason and humility seems very needed in this field! I'm wondering -- you say you have gotten results with pirHEG and that you plan to continue. Do you see that technology as placebo? I'm still a beginner with both pirHEG and NF (after several years of stop and go training here and there) (and finding Pete's methods by far the most accessible without dumbing down the complexity) but I find HEG, in its own way, as confounding as NF (in the sense of the temp or whatever it is that it's measuring going in strange places at strange times) -- and Pete himself recently posted that he has stopped selling that pendant because of its unreliability! I'd like to know more about your "faith" in the pirHEG modality ... Would you consider sticking around a bit to discuss this? Selfishly, Liz (also a talk therapist and struggling to reconcile NF with Big Science) Margoshes, Ph.D. NY State Licensed Psychologist On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "Dr. Goldring" <paul.goldring@...> wrote: Pete-I'm amazed that you remember my EEG after all these years and after you have no doubt seen many hundreds of assessments. I really wish I could have had the breadth of imagination to look at all of the approaches that i was exposed to and somehow synthesize a reasonably complete picture. I think you have done so and it is admirable. But I think I am in the majority and you are in the minority. I think that, failing a large synthesis, many retreat into one or the other silos of belief, or, like me, leave the field. My own large synthesis, not much changed since reading Bob Schofields book The Purchase Of Friendship in graduate school, is that all systems work if the therapist believes in them and is credible. It's ALL placebo, although that word has the wrong connotation. It's the conviction of the therapist not the actual tools. And I stopped believing that the tools would work for me if I was only patient and took one more training course. So now I am back to what I have always done: sitting quietly and talking to people. But it is charming to be compared to Ben Bernanke, I got a D in Economics! Keep on doing what you are doing. But could you write it down so it won't end with you? On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:44 AM, pvdtlc wrote: ,Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the workshops we did at your place on the Cape and have found your participation on the list to be positive and useful.It's interesting that you had a personal experience based on the TLC in your first session when I was staying with you. Trained (per the assessment) to reduce fast activity in the right-rear quadrant and slept through the night that night for the first time in years, per your report. But your intellectual self couldn't accept the theoretical "shortcomings" of the TLC 1. The standard TLC covers 10 QEEG channels, and the optional sites take you up to the same 18 channels a Q uses. Practically, however, looking at the front, back, center, midline and sides presents--per a number of comments posted on the list here over the past few days--a picture that is very close to what a full QEEG provides. It's either more efficient (from my way of seeing it) or limited (per yours).2. The inability to measure coherences among all sites in all 1-frequency bands is surely a deficit in the TLC relative to a Q for a small number of clients. Of course Bob Thatcher decided that gathering 2 channels at a time with a Brainmaster provided data that allowed him to compare coherences among all sites, even those which were gathered 8-10 minutes apart in time, with his QEEG database. I choose not to accept that finding, so we stick with using the coherences among homologous sites and in functional frequency bands rather than individual frequencies. In my experience the macro levels of high or low coherences in fast or slow frequencies identifies the great majority of the key issues that affect training results.3. As for the argument that the TLC doesn't use "normative" databases, I think I covered my rationale against using "norms" in the areas of brain activation and human behavior a few days ago in the email you referenced.To me, the proof is in the practice. I'm sure there are people who have done the TLC and switched to QEEG and found they got much better results. I wouldn't generally hear from those people, I suppose. But since I work with people every day whose experience is the opposite--that they are able to select training options much more quickly and effectively with the TLC, I'm happy to let those who prefer the more complex tool use it.As you may recall, my preparation for NF is not exactly a classical one. I managed to avoid getting a clinical degree (though I managed mental health services for 15 years and read a lot about the various approaches). Some of my best friends are psychotherapists. But my BA is in creative writing (learned a lot about entering peak creative states) and my MBA is in Finance & Economics. Those are very data-oriented ways of looking at chaotic complex systems and trying to make sense of them My practical experience was going into hospitals that were in serious trouble and trying to "turn them around"--which turned out to be a lot like working with an individual in his/her support system. Implementing changes in either case involves finding a path more consistent with current realities, testing it and then getting the variouis parties to adopt and support it. My supervised experience with NF started with learning from Lubar, who introduced me to the concept of stable energy patterns in the brain, and his wife Judith who stressed the importance of dealing with the homeostatic systems surrounding every client. Having read Virginia Satir a couple decades earlier, I saw how they fit together. Then I spent a bit over a year being supervised by a Ph.D. behaviorist--where I learned the importance of focusing on outcomes--a family systems Ph.D.--where I reinforced my belief on the importance of dealing with homeostasis--and a psychiatrist who taught me a lot about neurotransmitters. But these approaches, which they considered to be very different, were easily integratable in the way I saw the world, and they formed the foundation for the TLC approach.Unlike your experience with the Othmers and others, mine was that I learned something from each of them (including Val Brown, Len Ochs, Marvin Sams, Sterman, Lubar and others) that didn't contradict what I already knew. Rather I begin identifying the types of problems or clients that got better results with the various different approachs and trying to integrate them into a whole picture.Glad to hear that you have found something that works for you and your clients, and I continue to wish you the best!PeteThe point of view that ended up confusing you to the point of departure is very consistent with that of economists who look at tens of thousands of individual data points, become obsessed with the "scientific" description of all those trees, and totally miss forests as large as a complete meltdown of huge economies--even when they are actually in process. I prefer those economists who looked at overall trends in the light of historical experience and said, "wow, it looks like things are going to get BAD in the next 1-3 years unless one of these steps is taken." Big-time beta processors (I still remember your EEG from those years back) do struggle mightily with overviews and practical application of patterns, because their brains only see details (Ben Bernanke comes to mind, reassuring everyone right up to the collapse that housing problems would have little or no effect on the overall economy).-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post. I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. Here’s what I think is going on: I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” that would allow me to side step the decision process. So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best. Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. Goldring, PhD Counseling & Psychotherapy 40 County Road North Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Goldring, PhD Counseling & Psychotherapy 40 County Road North Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Oh! Thanks for the info, Pete. -Liz Margoshes, Ph.D.NY State Licensed PsychologistOn Feb 1, 2012, at 10:05 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote: Liz,I assume is using Jeff Carmen's system directly from him. That's not the same as the pIR Pendant issues that I was speaking of. Thought Technology also uses pIR and their system is reputed to work quite well. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA'>http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Me <drmargoshes@...> wrote: ,It was very interesting to read your farewell post. However, it made me think of the Beatles song that goes "you say goodbye, and I say hello." Your voice of reason and humility seems very needed in this field! I'm wondering -- you say you have gotten results with pirHEG and that you plan to continue. Do you see that technology as placebo? I'm still a beginner with both pirHEG and NF (after several years of stop and go training here and there) (and finding Pete's methods by far the most accessible without dumbing down the complexity) but I find HEG, in its own way, as confounding as NF (in the sense of the temp or whatever it is that it's measuring going in strange places at strange times) -- and Pete himself recently posted that he has stopped selling that pendant because of its unreliability! I'd like to know more about your "faith" in the pirHEG modality ... Would you consider sticking around a bit to discuss this?Selfishly, Liz (also a talk therapist and struggling to reconcile NF with Big Science) Margoshes, Ph.D.NY State Licensed PsychologistOn Feb 1, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "Dr. Goldring" <paul.goldring@...> wrote: Pete-I'm amazed that you remember my EEG after all these years and after you have no doubt seen many hundreds of assessments. I really wish I could have had the breadth of imagination to look at all of the approaches that i was exposed to and somehow synthesize a reasonably complete picture. I think you have done so and it is admirable. But I think I am in the majority and you are in the minority. I think that, failing a large synthesis, many retreat into one or the other silos of belief, or, like me, leave the field. My own large synthesis, not much changed since reading Bob Schofields book The Purchase Of Friendship in graduate school, is that all systems work if the therapist believes in them and is credible. It's ALL placebo, although that word has the wrong connotation. It's the conviction of the therapist not the actual tools. And I stopped believing that the tools would work for me if I was only patient and took one more training course. So now I am back to what I have always done: sitting quietly and talking to people. But it is charming to be compared to Ben Bernanke, I got a D in Economics!Keep on doing what you are doing. But could you write it down so it won't end with you?On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:44 AM, pvdtlc wrote: ,Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the workshops we did at your place on the Cape and have found your participation on the list to be positive and useful.It's interesting that you had a personal experience based on the TLC in your first session when I was staying with you. Trained (per the assessment) to reduce fast activity in the right-rear quadrant and slept through the night that night for the first time in years, per your report. But your intellectual self couldn't accept the theoretical "shortcomings" of the TLC 1. The standard TLC covers 10 QEEG channels, and the optional sites take you up to the same 18 channels a Q uses. Practically, however, looking at the front, back, center, midline and sides presents--per a number of comments posted on the list here over the past few days--a picture that is very close to what a full QEEG provides. It's either more efficient (from my way of seeing it) or limited (per yours). 2. The inability to measure coherences among all sites in all 1-frequency bands is surely a deficit in the TLC relative to a Q for a small number of clients. Of course Bob Thatcher decided that gathering 2 channels at a time with a Brainmaster provided data that allowed him to compare coherences among all sites, even those which were gathered 8-10 minutes apart in time, with his QEEG database. I choose not to accept that finding, so we stick with using the coherences among homologous sites and in functional frequency bands rather than individual frequencies. In my experience the macro levels of high or low coherences in fast or slow frequencies identifies the great majority of the key issues that affect training results. 3. As for the argument that the TLC doesn't use "normative" databases, I think I covered my rationale against using "norms" in the areas of brain activation and human behavior a few days ago in the email you referenced. To me, the proof is in the practice. I'm sure there are people who have done the TLC and switched to QEEG and found they got much better results. I wouldn't generally hear from those people, I suppose. But since I work with people every day whose experience is the opposite--that they are able to select training options much more quickly and effectively with the TLC, I'm happy to let those who prefer the more complex tool use it. As you may recall, my preparation for NF is not exactly a classical one. I managed to avoid getting a clinical degree (though I managed mental health services for 15 years and read a lot about the various approaches). Some of my best friends are psychotherapists. But my BA is in creative writing (learned a lot about entering peak creative states) and my MBA is in Finance & Economics. Those are very data-oriented ways of looking at chaotic complex systems and trying to make sense of them My practical experience was going into hospitals that were in serious trouble and trying to "turn them around"--which turned out to be a lot like working with an individual in his/her support system. Implementing changes in either case involves finding a path more consistent with current realities, testing it and then getting the variouis parties to adopt and support it. My supervised experience with NF started with learning from Lubar, who introduced me to the concept of stable energy patterns in the brain, and his wife Judith who stressed the importance of dealing with the homeostatic systems surrounding every client. Having read Virginia Satir a couple decades earlier, I saw how they fit together. Then I spent a bit over a year being supervised by a Ph.D. behaviorist--where I learned the importance of focusing on outcomes--a family systems Ph.D.--where I reinforced my belief on the importance of dealing with homeostasis--and a psychiatrist who taught me a lot about neurotransmitters. But these approaches, which they considered to be very different, were easily integratable in the way I saw the world, and they formed the foundation for the TLC approach. Unlike your experience with the Othmers and others, mine was that I learned something from each of them (including Val Brown, Len Ochs, Marvin Sams, Sterman, Lubar and others) that didn't contradict what I already knew. Rather I begin identifying the types of problems or clients that got better results with the various different approachs and trying to integrate them into a whole picture. Glad to hear that you have found something that works for you and your clients, and I continue to wish you the best!PeteThe point of view that ended up confusing you to the point of departure is very consistent with that of economists who look at tens of thousands of individual data points, become obsessed with the "scientific" description of all those trees, and totally miss forests as large as a complete meltdown of huge economies--even when they are actually in process. I prefer those economists who looked at overall trends in the light of historical experience and said, "wow, it looks like things are going to get BAD in the next 1-3 years unless one of these steps is taken." Big-time beta processors (I still remember your EEG from those years back) do struggle mightily with overviews and practical application of patterns, because their brains only see details (Ben Bernanke comes to mind, reassuring everyone right up to the collapse that housing problems would have little or no effect on the overall economy). -- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post. I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. Here’s what I think is going on: I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet†that would allow me to side step the decision process. So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best. Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. Goldring, PhDCounseling & Psychotherapy40 County RoadNorth Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Goldring, PhDCounseling & Psychotherapy40 County RoadNorth Falmouth, MA 02556paul.goldring@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dr Goldring, To preface my post – I took no offense by your comment: “I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent” I just always find such comments from academia amusing. I remember a few years ago when my college professor friend complimented me with “Wow, you’re pretty smart for someone without a degree.” I didn’t know whether to be offended or thank her, as if education and schooling are synonymous. When Pete trains moms – he is training the most highly motivated, result seeking individuals on the planet. If most of these moms are like me they have tried “traditional” methods. They have left no stone unturned in their desire to facilitate learning or bring relief to those they love most. Typically they have spent thousands of dollars and years of research in their quest for answers. When they come to NF – they thank the Lord for leading them to yet another option – and as for me, my 12 year old son went from reading pre-K books to HS books and testing at a College level in comprehension in 6 weeks. Once again – I took no offense and mean non by this post - Brain Banger Mom - PS - Sorry to hear you're leaving NF On 1/31/12, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: > I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve > stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I > would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this > lengthy post. > I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally > oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. > I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first > encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from > Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) > and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments > too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then > in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian > techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing > seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel > Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. > > Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the > scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting > to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a > sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly > excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback > using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 > after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I > can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to > make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. > I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my > real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but > eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by > the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide > whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My > questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then > waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults > with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. > > After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. > these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it > wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing > QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, > many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on > the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in > hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because > a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real > coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative > description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG > approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got > an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to > a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` > My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make > sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I > repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not > yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. > After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I > gave up. > Here’s what I think is going on: > I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. > I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when > training. > I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” > that would allow me to side step the decision process. > So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. > I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do > something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more > elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of > treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the > best. > > Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete > offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on > research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely > agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains > around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in > that department. It may even have been a deterrent. > So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I > hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills > with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its > a relief to sit down and rest. > > > Goldring, PhD > Counseling & Psychotherapy > 40 County Road > North Falmouth, MA 02556 > paul.goldring@... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dr Goldring, To preface my post – I took no offense by your comment: “I don’t completely agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent” I just always find such comments from academia amusing. I remember a few years ago when my college professor friend complimented me with “Wow, you’re pretty smart for someone without a degree.” I didn’t know whether to be offended or thank her, as if education and schooling are synonymous. When Pete trains moms – he is training the most highly motivated, result seeking individuals on the planet. If most of these moms are like me they have tried “traditional” methods. They have left no stone unturned in their desire to facilitate learning or bring relief to those they love most. Typically they have spent thousands of dollars and years of research in their quest for answers. When they come to NF – they thank the Lord for leading them to yet another option – and as for me, my 12 year old son went from reading pre-K books to HS books and testing at a College level in comprehension in 6 weeks. Once again – I took no offense and mean non by this post - Brain Banger Mom - PS - Sorry to hear you're leaving NF On 1/31/12, Dr. Goldring <paul.goldring@...> wrote: > I’ve thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I’ve > stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen’s PIR HEG. I thought I > would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this > lengthy post. > I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally > oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. > I’ve been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first > encountered biofeedback by reading Neal ’s pathbreaking reports from > Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) > and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments > too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then > in 1974 I read Barry Sterman’s incredible results using Skinnerian > techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing > seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel > Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. > > Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the > scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting > to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a > sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly > excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback > using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 > after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I > can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to > make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. > I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my > real trouble was deciphering the patient’s response. Most were perplexed but > eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by > the patient’s response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide > whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My > questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then > waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults > with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. > > After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. > these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it > wasn’t my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing > QEEG’s and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, > many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete’s recent very good post on > the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in > hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because > a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn’t allow real > coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative > description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG > approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got > an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to > a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` > My experience was that I didn’t trust my own results. The Q’s didn’t make > sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I > repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not > yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. > After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I > gave up. > Here’s what I think is going on: > I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. > I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when > training. > I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a “magic bullet” > that would allow me to side step the decision process. > So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. > I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do > something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more > elaborate reasons why they didn’t see anything. Doing fewer kinds of > treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the > best. > > Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete > offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on > research where it exists and experience when it doesn’t. I don’t completely > agree with the efficacy of training mom’s to bang’ their kid’s brains > around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in > that department. It may even have been a deterrent. > So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I > hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills > with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its > a relief to sit down and rest. > > > Goldring, PhD > Counseling & Psychotherapy > 40 County Road > North Falmouth, MA 02556 > paul.goldring@... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 > > > I've thought for a while I should resign from Braintrainer since I've stopped doing any neurofeedback except Jeff Carmen's PIR HEG. I thought I would share with you my reasons and my experience, if you will forgive this lengthy post. > I am a psychologist, 40 years in the business, cognitively and behaviorally oriented, trained in a traditional PhD program with a solid research bent. I've been doing psychotherapy one way or another for a long time and i first encountered biofeedback by reading Neal 's pathbreaking reports from Rockefeller University. I got some stand alone equipment (remember Autogen) and tried my hand at it. But there were too many dials, too many adjustments too many variables and no record keeping. I gave it up for many years. Then in 1974 I read Barry Sterman's incredible results using Skinnerian techniques to train EEG in cats, then immediately switching to reducing seizures in humans. I was blown away. I thought sure he would win a Nobel Prize. Ha! Years passed and there was not a squeak from the media. > > Then in 1997 I saw an ad from the Othmer group showing Barry to be the scientific adviser. I followed up and saw that they had a system purporting to train the brain to produce waves consistent with calm, or to energize a sluggish brain. I took their training near Boston and was incredibly excited. I set out to transfer my practice entirely to doing EEG Biofeedback using the methods they had taught. Train Beta up at C3, train SMR up at C4 after doing a kind of assessment of the symptoms brought to the office. I can well remember the feeling of learning to place electrodes and try to make sense of the signal on the monitor before me. > I had the usual trouble with setting up and getting clean records but my real trouble was deciphering the patient's response. Most were perplexed but eager to succeed. I could not seem to titrate the training frequencies by the patient's response. I saw and heard others do it but I could not decide whether the person before me was feeling better, worse or nothing. My questions always seemed leading, to me, pushing for an answer rather then waiting to get one. I did not have good results in spite of many consults with the Othmer staff and several other consultants. > > After a few years I started going to ISNR and here I felt more comfortable. these were familiar scientist types who spoke a language, which while it wasn't my favorite, was at least one I knew. They got me interested in doing QEEG's and I invested heavily in equipment, the Thatcher database and many, many seminars. I realize now, after reading Pete's recent very good post on the subject, that my motive was to obviate the terrible problem of where in hell to put the electrodes. The TLC approach seemed not sufficient because a) it was only a small sub-sample of the brain and didn't allow real coherence across all electrodes simultaneously. Also it is only a relative description without norms, except informally. But I hoped that he QEEG approach would allow me to solve the problem neatly. It was a morass. I got an inexpensive system that I could never get good signals from, moved on to a russian one that cost a lot but got better signals. ` > My experience was that I didn't trust my own results. The Q's didn't make sense compared to what I thought about the person in the chair. If I repeated one, there was almost no correlation. Training from the Q did not yield particularly good results any more then the other systems. > After m any thousands of dollars and about 8 more years (out of about 12) I gave up. > Here's what I think is going on: > I am too impulsive and jumped around too much in training. > I never had completely clear plans and a clear idea of what to look for when training. > I got too hung up in the equipment and kept looking for a " magic bullet " that would allow me to side step the decision process. > So I have decided to restrict myself to what seems to work the best for me. I see results from PIR HEG within a few sessions and if not, I stop and do something else. No 30 -50 sessions with me coming up with more and more elaborate reasons why they didn't see anything. Doing fewer kinds of treatments lets me focus better on what I like and what seems to work the best. > > Of all the (very) many people doing the training in this field, I think Pete offers the best return on investment. His claims are sensible, based on research where it exists and experience when it doesn't. I don't completely agree with the efficacy of training mom's to bang' their kid's brains around, but I have to agree that my PhD did not offer me ANY advantage in that department. It may even have been a deterrent. > So I say good by to all the people I have met over these past years and I hope that all goes well for you, the field and the treatment of mental ills with physiological methods. It has been a very steep learning curve and its a relief to sit down and rest. > > > Goldring, PhD > Counseling & Psychotherapy > 40 County Road > North Falmouth, MA 02556 > paul.goldring@... > > > > > > > > Goldring, PhD > Counseling & Psychotherapy > 40 County Road > North Falmouth, MA 02556 > paul.goldring@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.