Re: Setting thresholds

[Guest guest]

These days I am questioning the approach to setting thresholds. I am moving towards something like setting the threshold at the mean after one to two minutes and holding it there. I want to set the threshold so that when trainees start to get feedback they will be more aware of its correspondence to some kind of state shift. Part of the feedback becomes experiencing more of the feedback for a longer time than they did at the start of the session. I haven’t formulated this approach to the degree that I’d like and wondering if anyone else has explored this mode of setting thresholds.

Mark

From: pvdtlc

Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:39 AM

Subject: Re: Re:Efficacy of QEEG guided NF in ADHD

I have no doubt that auto thresholding in the beginning of a session to find out where the brain is at the beginning of the session--to set the baseline as it were--then fixing it will produce greater results than constant auto thresholds. The first time I tried auto thresholds many years ago, my 6-year-old client summed up the client's experience very succinctly: "If I focus better, the target gets harder; if I stop focusing, it gets easier. I always get the same number of points. Why should I focus?"

As I wrote a bit earlier, if you are using rewards with inhibits, I suspect that leaving those in auto will probably prove to be best. Otherwise overall reductions in amplitudes will result in the client receiving LESS feedback when the brain is doing exactly what we are asking it to do.

Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote:

The link below provides a read of an interesting recent study that suggests a number of things that they plan to test in future research. One of those is provided in the section I quoted below. Some other things that future studies may test is the possibility that manual thresholds and the addition of explicit strategies might work better than the auto thresholds and reliance on just implicit strategies.Another fascinating result in this study(figure 1 under efficacy)is the degree of improvement over time in subjects who received sham or placebo training. Brucehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051071/?tool=pubmed"It may be speculated that individualized EEG-neurofeedback as mostly applied in practice with the aim to normalize `deviant' brain activity is not effective, whereas standardized EEG-neurofeedback training with the aim to self-control brain activity is effective. The deviation from the normative EEG database may just indicate electrophysiological heterogeneity that is normal or even adaptive rather than pathological."