RE: Re: Terminology (nomenclature)

[Guest guest]

,

I totally agree. If you define what you're doing mathematically, then

anyone can replicate it. So a standard single channel protocol is active

minus reference (or vice versa ... it doesn't matter because there are

no negative values). Even the " bipolar " placements, although both

" active " are simply the value at one site minus the value at the other

or more simply, the difference between two sites (eg, C3-A1 or A1-C3 or

C3-C4 or C4-C3, etc). Even alleged " reference " sites are active.

When it comes to 2-channel training where you are summing the channels,

then mathematically the value you are training is, for example,

(C3-A1)+(C4-A2).

Regarding Siegfried Othmer ... I have never seen him use the " / " to

identify a training montage. I have been on lists with him for seven

years and have only ever seen him use the correct mathematical symbols

.... remember he's a physicist! The first time I ever saw the " / " used

was when I joined the BrainTrainer list.

You're right though, whichever way we do it we do need a standard way to

describe what we are doing that can be instantly understood worldwide.

Mark Darling

Re: Re: Terminology

>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:01:59 -0800

>

>I agree with Rah,

>

>I think it's makes much more sense to write notation with a " minus "

>sign, to reflect what we are actually doing with the electrodes.

>So T3-A1, T4-A2, since the position of the ground electrode doesn't

>matter.

>

>If T3/T4 is written, I would assume the references have been left

>out, and it's really a T3-A1, T4-A2.

>

>Best,

>

>

>

>

>

> > In this case I would write it T3-T4. But it doesn't matter. I'm

not

> > writing much anyway!!

> > Rah

> >

> >

> >>

> >> Rah, because of the widespread use of the Othmer interhemispheric

> > protocols- t3/t4 is a bipolar reading for many people. Hence, Jim's

> > system is the only opportunity for clarity, IMHO

> >> Sheila

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >