Re: Protocol Decision Trees

[Guest guest]

I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done. Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense? I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation. I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a

publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing. nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from") Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks--Chris

[Guest guest]

I think that we all want to make the best protocol selections for

our patients/clients. The Othmer's were among the first to use decision

trees / flow charts to guide protocol selections. Their basic premises

are still valid today as are the protocols. Many heuristics have been

developed over time and all have some validity. That being said, the

devil is in the details. A decision tree / flowchart can take you down

the wrong path, too.

While a protocol decision tree/flowchart can be helpful, I

believe that a better protocol selection process involves " triangulation "

where a decision tree / flowchart is one of multiple inputs. Do the

history, symptoms, and indications all point to the same thing? What

symptoms and indications might be unnoticeable or have been overlooked?

If " it " walks like a ..., quacks like a ..., looks like a ..., then " it "

is probably is a ... . Note that I said " probably. " If you focused only

on " it " having a bill, then a platypus would be diagnosed as a duck.

There other issues with logic and flowcharts that make decision

trees less helpful than you might think but that is a subject for another

time. I, too, once pursued the idea of a " cookbook " for protocol

selection. As I gained experience, training, and knowledge, I realized

that it is only one of several considerations to use in making protocol

selection. It is true that 80-90% of cases are uncomplicated and that

therefore 80-90% of neurofeedback protocols address basic beta and/or

theta issues. It's those cues you don't see that end up as " gottchas "

//Peder

[Guest guest]

Dear Peder: Your post was helpful. I didn't mean to imply that using protocols was, or would be, a "cookbook" process. I can't imagine a cookbook approach with the BioExplorer software. And I would imagine that many diagnoses and treatments in standard medicine are pretty much as you described NF assessments and protocols. Other than that disclaimer I don't think there was much in my e-mail that wasn't in accord with your comments. Regarding the Othmers -- I've been through their training sessions about 6 years ago. I don't remember any protocol "trees". In fact I think I recall that all they seemed to recommend was single channel C3/C4 theta and hibeta down, and SMR up. I just think that if neurofeedback is to gain some serious credibility in the community

of therapists (and I include standard physicians among that group), it's going to have to tighten up -- academic programs, licensing exams, certification etc. My suggestion regarding informal sharing and sharpening "protocol trees" is really a very modest suggestion to get started in that direction. nick mammano nick mammano Peder H Fagerholm wrote: I think that we all want to

make the best protocol selections forour patients/clients. The Othmer's were among the first to use decisiontrees / flow charts to guide protocol selections. Their basic premisesare still valid today as are the protocols. Many heuristics have beendeveloped over time and all have some validity. That being said, thedevil is in the details. A decision tree / flowchart can take you downthe wrong path, too.While a protocol decision tree/flowchart can be helpful, Ibelieve that a better protocol selection process involves "triangulation"where a decision tree / flowchart is one of multiple inputs. Do thehistory, symptoms, and indications all point to the same thing? Whatsymptoms and indications might be unnoticeable or have been overlooked?If "it" walks like a ..., quacks like a ..., looks like a ..., then "it"is probably is a ... . Note that I said "probably." If you focused onlyon "it" having a bill, then a platypus would

be diagnosed as a duck. There other issues with logic and flowcharts that make decisiontrees less helpful than you might think but that is a subject for anothertime. I, too, once pursued the idea of a "cookbook" for protocolselection. As I gained experience, training, and knowledge, I realizedthat it is only one of several considerations to use in making protocolselection. It is true that 80-90% of cases are uncomplicated and thattherefore 80-90% of neurofeedback protocols address basic beta and/ortheta issues. It's those cues you don't see that end up as "gottchas" //Peder

[Guest guest]

Dear Peder: Your post was helpful. I didn't mean to imply that using protocols was, or would be, a "cookbook" process. I can't imagine a cookbook approach with the BioExplorer software. And I would imagine that many diagnoses and treatments in standard medicine are pretty much as you described NF assessments and protocols. Other than that disclaimer I don't think there was much in my e-mail that wasn't in accord with your comments. Regarding the Othmers -- I've been through their training sessions about 6 years ago. I don't remember any protocol "trees". In fact I think I recall that all they seemed to recommend was single channel C3/C4 theta and hibeta down, and SMR up. I just think that if neurofeedback is to gain some serious credibility in the community

of therapists (and I include standard physicians among that group), it's going to have to tighten up -- academic programs, licensing exams, certification etc. My suggestion regarding informal sharing and sharpening "protocol trees" is really a very modest suggestion to get started in that direction. nick mammano nick mammano Peder H Fagerholm wrote: I think that we all want to

make the best protocol selections forour patients/clients. The Othmer's were among the first to use decisiontrees / flow charts to guide protocol selections. Their basic premisesare still valid today as are the protocols. Many heuristics have beendeveloped over time and all have some validity. That being said, thedevil is in the details. A decision tree / flowchart can take you downthe wrong path, too.While a protocol decision tree/flowchart can be helpful, Ibelieve that a better protocol selection process involves "triangulation"where a decision tree / flowchart is one of multiple inputs. Do thehistory, symptoms, and indications all point to the same thing? Whatsymptoms and indications might be unnoticeable or have been overlooked?If "it" walks like a ..., quacks like a ..., looks like a ..., then "it"is probably is a ... . Note that I said "probably." If you focused onlyon "it" having a bill, then a platypus would

be diagnosed as a duck. There other issues with logic and flowcharts that make decisiontrees less helpful than you might think but that is a subject for anothertime. I, too, once pursued the idea of a "cookbook" for protocolselection. As I gained experience, training, and knowledge, I realizedthat it is only one of several considerations to use in making protocolselection. It is true that 80-90% of cases are uncomplicated and thattherefore 80-90% of neurofeedback protocols address basic beta and/ortheta issues. It's those cues you don't see that end up as "gottchas" //Peder

[Guest guest]

The Othmers have come a long way since then, Nick. Sue has published a

protocol decision tree, and it is awesome. They encourage finding an ORF

(optimum reward frequency) and working from there, the protocol decision

tree being mainly for placement of the electrodes.

Jill

_____

From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On

Behalf Of NICK MAMMANO

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:44 PM

To: braintrainer

Subject: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

Dear Peder: Your post was helpful. I didn't mean to imply that using

protocols was, or would be, a " cookbook " process. I can't imagine a

cookbook approach with the BioExplorer software. And I would imagine that

many diagnoses and treatments in standard medicine are pretty much as you

described NF assessments and protocols.

Other than that disclaimer I don't think there was much in my e-mail that

wasn't in accord with your comments.

Regarding the Othmers -- I've been through their training sessions about 6

years ago. I don't remember any protocol " trees " . In fact I think I recall

that all they seemed to recommend was single channel C3/C4 theta and hibeta

down, and SMR up.

I just think that if neurofeedback is to gain some serious credibility in

the community of therapists (and I include standard physicians among that

group), it's going to have to tighten up -- academic programs, licensing

exams, certification etc.

My suggestion regarding informal sharing and sharpening " protocol trees " is

really a very modest suggestion to get started in that direction.

nick mammano

nick mammano

Peder H Fagerholm <cdrphfphd1juno (DOT) -com> wrote:

I think that we all want to make the best protocol selections for

our patients/clients. The Othmer's were among the first to use decision

trees / flow charts to guide protocol selections. Their basic premises

are still valid today as are the protocols. Many heuristics have been

developed over time and all have some validity. That being said, the

devil is in the details. A decision tree / flowchart can take you down

the wrong path, too.

While a protocol decision tree/flowchart can be helpful, I

believe that a better protocol selection process involves " triangulation "

where a decision tree / flowchart is one of multiple inputs. Do the

history, symptoms, and indications all point to the same thing? What

symptoms and indications might be unnoticeable or have been overlooked?

If " it " walks like a ..., quacks like a ..., looks like a ..., then " it "

is probably is a ... . Note that I said " probably. " If you focused only

on " it " having a bill, then a platypus would be diagnosed as a duck.

There other issues with logic and flowcharts that make decision

trees less helpful than you might think but that is a subject for another

time. I, too, once pursued the idea of a " cookbook " for protocol

selection. As I gained experience, training, and knowledge, I realized

that it is only one of several considerations to use in making protocol

selection. It is true that 80-90% of cases are uncomplicated and that

therefore 80-90% of neurofeedback protocols address basic beta and/or

theta issues. It's those cues you don't see that end up as " gottchas "

//Peder

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.486 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date: 12/26/2007

5:26 PM

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.486 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date: 12/26/2007

5:26 PM

[Guest guest]

The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..

or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/

best from Øystein...)

2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO :

I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done.

Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?

I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one " client " . For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation.

I know that the phrase " scientific credibility " makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the " bad " , or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a " double-blind study " , refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.

nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics

(title listed so you know " where I'm coming from " )

Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks--

-- LCSW Øystein Larsen

mob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

I'm fresh out of school (clinical psychology m.s.) and have been baffled by the field of neurofeedback, which is also why I'm so excited to be entering the field. It's nice to see that someone can learn the basics of NF, train at home, and get relief from their symptoms without any background in neurology or psychology. It's also exciting trying to sift through a mountain of anecdotal evidence and poorly designed & written research, to try and find the well designed studies and scientific evidence that exists in the field. From my understanding of the brain, circuits are involved in most brain activity, these circuits can include structures in the cortex, mid-brain, and cerebellum e.g. the frontal-striatal-thalamocortical-cerebellar circuitry involved in regulating ADHD symptoms.If a proper assessment is conducted, and sub-cortical structures are implicated, it makes since to me to train these areas first. For example if trauma has resulted in hyper-vigilance, why begin training the overactive cortex, why not start with the sub-cortical structures that are influencing the excess fast activity. Why train contra-lateral coherence issues if the right & left hemispheres are not communicating properly.Tell me if I'm wrong Pete, but that's the impression I got from the discussion of Tone issues in the level 2 workshop. If the client has a positive response to training that influences sub-cortical structures, train them first. This is assuming that all other variables agree with the training protocol (presenting symptoms, client history, rule-outs). Jack>> The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer> is in this forum from time to time..> or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/> > best from Øystein...)> > > 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO nickmammano@...:> >> > I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by> > trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should> > not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be> > done.> >> > Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?> >> > I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one> > "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and> > convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given> > situation.> >> > I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this> > list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great> > systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones> > and improve on those that work.> >> > Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a> > publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling> > resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.> >> > nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics> > (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from")> >> > **> >> > Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to> > compare them with mine.> > Thanks> > --Chris> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > -- > LCSW Øystein Larsen> mob.+47 90143389> fax. +47 33462750> Biofeedback in Scandinavia> Clinics, training and equipment> Thought Technology> Roshi>

[Guest guest]

I'm fresh out of school (clinical psychology m.s.) and have been baffled by the field of neurofeedback, which is also why I'm so excited to be entering the field. It's nice to see that someone can learn the basics of NF, train at home, and get relief from their symptoms without any background in neurology or psychology. It's also exciting trying to sift through a mountain of anecdotal evidence and poorly designed & written research, to try and find the well designed studies and scientific evidence that exists in the field. From my understanding of the brain, circuits are involved in most brain activity, these circuits can include structures in the cortex, mid-brain, and cerebellum e.g. the frontal-striatal-thalamocortical-cerebellar circuitry involved in regulating ADHD symptoms.If a proper assessment is conducted, and sub-cortical structures are implicated, it makes since to me to train these areas first. For example if trauma has resulted in hyper-vigilance, why begin training the overactive cortex, why not start with the sub-cortical structures that are influencing the excess fast activity. Why train contra-lateral coherence issues if the right & left hemispheres are not communicating properly.Tell me if I'm wrong Pete, but that's the impression I got from the discussion of Tone issues in the level 2 workshop. If the client has a positive response to training that influences sub-cortical structures, train them first. This is assuming that all other variables agree with the training protocol (presenting symptoms, client history, rule-outs). Jack>> The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer> is in this forum from time to time..> or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/> > best from Øystein...)> > > 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO nickmammano@...:> >> > I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by> > trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should> > not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be> > done.> >> > Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?> >> > I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one> > "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and> > convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given> > situation.> >> > I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this> > list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great> > systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones> > and improve on those that work.> >> > Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a> > publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling> > resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.> >> > nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics> > (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from")> >> > **> >> > Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to> > compare them with mine.> > Thanks> > --Chris> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > -- > LCSW Øystein Larsen> mob.+47 90143389> fax. +47 33462750> Biofeedback in Scandinavia> Clinics, training and equipment> Thought Technology> Roshi>

[Guest guest]

Re: Protocol Decision Trees

If a proper assessment is conducted, and sub-cortical structures are implicated, it makes since to me to train these areas first.

..

Well-It also makes good sense not to for the reasons mentioned below;

-----

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/47123

As nearly as I remember I was criticizing the present useof QEEG in its use of std deviation as a clue for treatment positions.This statement is based on the interconnection of various brain modules,specifically the over reaching function of the frontal cortex in itsinfluence on other brain modules. If the prefrontal cortex malfunctionsthat will be reflected in the std. dev. of other modules that havenothing wrong with them.This is not a criticism of EEG but rather how it is used in this instance.

You will notice neuroscience is using EEG verysparingly since the advent of fMRI. The reason is that fMRI is simpler,more reproducible and more closely tied to the psychophysiology of brainfunction.

----

Bruce

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

My opinion is biased by my inexperience with NF. Can you elaborate on

your comment? I'm eager to learn from experienced trainers.

Thanks,

Jack

>

>

> Re: Protocol Decision Trees

>

>

>

>

> If a proper assessment is conducted, and sub-cortical structures are

implicated, it makes since to me to train these areas first.

> Recent Activity

> a.. 4New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Yahoo! Health

> Looking for Love?

>

> Find relationship

>

> advice and answers.

>

> Healthy Eating

> A Yahoo! resource

>

> for families on

>

> how to eat healthy

>

> Sitebuilder

> Build a web site

>

> quickly & easily

>

> with Sitebuilder.

> .

>

>

> Well-It also makes good sense not to for the reasons mentioned below;

>

> -----

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/47123

>

> As nearly as I remember I was criticizing the present use

> of QEEG in its use of std deviation as a clue for treatment positions.

> This statement is based on the interconnection of various brain

modules,

> specifically the over reaching function of the frontal cortex in its

> influence on other brain modules. If the prefrontal cortex

malfunctions

> that will be reflected in the std. dev. of other modules that have

> nothing wrong with them.

> This is not a criticism of EEG but rather how it is used in this

instance.

>

>

> You will notice neuroscience is using EEG very

> sparingly since the advent of fMRI. The reason is that fMRI is

simpler,

> more reproducible and more closely tied to the psychophysiology of

brain

> function.

>

> ----

>

> Bruce

>

[Guest guest]

Re: Protocol Decision Trees

Bruce,Can you elaborate on

..

Read below;

-----

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884

Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness

,I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have brought tobear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attention tothe brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is a missinglink in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a seriousmissing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field oftreatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter andCummings "Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders" and"The Human Frontal Lobes" by and Cummings. In these books it isclear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting andcontrolling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques and itsusers. There are further studies that point out the importance of thecontrol exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brain modules.QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference ofeye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivity inautism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in the rightdirection. However if the out of control brain areas are responsible forproper connectivity then studying them while they are out of control isapt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben is correctin his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism areparticularly susceptible to coherence faultsI have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence ofseveral well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, andAutism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown by fMRI,PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poor regulationby prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studiedcases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure ofthis control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlled bythe faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorly controlledareas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into thecorral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of the frontalcircuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding up thewild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helpsthem recover!Hershel Toomim

-------

Bruce

[Guest guest]

I've been reading research articles on ADHD for a couple of years now,

but after reading the comments you included by Hershel Toomim, and

Gismondi's initial message, I think I'll read for a couple more

years before offering my opinion next time - very educational.

>

>

> Re: Protocol Decision Trees

>

>

> Bruce,

>

> Can you elaborate on

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 4New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Healthy Eating

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> A place for parents

>

> to share their ideas.

>

> Yahoo! Health

> Looking for Love?

>

> Find relationship

>

> advice and answers.

>

> Real Food Group

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> What does real food

>

> mean to you?

> .

>

> Read below;

> -----

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884

>

> Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness

>

>

> ,

> I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have brought

to

> bear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attention

to

> the brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is a

missing

> link in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a serious

> missing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field of

> treatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter and

> Cummings " Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders " and

> " The Human Frontal Lobes " by and Cummings. In these books it is

> clear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting and

> controlling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques and

its

> users. There are further studies that point out the importance of the

> control exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brain

modules.

> QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference of

> eye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.

>

> Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivity

in

> autism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in the

right

> direction. However if the out of control brain areas are responsible

for

> proper connectivity then studying them while they are out of control

is

> apt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben is

correct

> in his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism are

> particularly susceptible to coherence faults

>

> I have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence of

> several well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, and

> Autism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown by

fMRI,

> PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poor

regulation

> by prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studied

> cases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure of

> this control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlled

by

> the faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorly

controlled

> areas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,

> rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into the

> corral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of the

frontal

> circuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding up

the

> wild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helps

> them recover!

>

> Hershel Toomim

>

> -------

> Bruce

>

[Guest guest]

Well-If you hadn't offered your opinion this learning opportunity for both you and I would not have come up. I'm now clearer on Hershel's point of view than I was when we started.

Keep on making the comments and asking the questions.

Bruce

Re: Protocol Decision Trees>>> Bruce,>> Can you elaborate on>> Recent Activity> a.. 4New Members> Visit Your Group> Healthy Eating> on Yahoo! Groups>> A place for parents>> to share their ideas.>> Yahoo! Health> Looking for Love?>> Find relationship>> advice and answers.>> Real Food Group> on Yahoo! Groups>> What does real food>> mean to you?> .>> Read below;> -----> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884>> Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness>>> ,> I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have broughtto> bear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attentionto> the brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is amissing> link in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a serious> missing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field of> treatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter and> Cummings "Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders" and> "The Human Frontal Lobes" by and Cummings. In these books it is> clear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting and> controlling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques andits> users. There are further studies that point out the importance of the> control exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brainmodules.> QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference of> eye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.>> Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivityin> autism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in theright> direction. However if the out of control brain areas are responsiblefor> proper connectivity then studying them while they are out of controlis> apt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben iscorrect> in his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism are> particularly susceptible to coherence faults>> I have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence of> several well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, and> Autism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown byfMRI,> PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poorregulation> by prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studied> cases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure of> this control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlledby> the faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorlycontrolled> areas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,> rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into the> corral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of thefrontal> circuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding upthe> wild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helps> them recover!>> Hershel Toomim>> -------> Bruce>

[Guest guest]

Well-If you hadn't offered your opinion this learning opportunity for both you and I would not have come up. I'm now clearer on Hershel's point of view than I was when we started.

Keep on making the comments and asking the questions.

Bruce

Re: Protocol Decision Trees>>> Bruce,>> Can you elaborate on>> Recent Activity> a.. 4New Members> Visit Your Group> Healthy Eating> on Yahoo! Groups>> A place for parents>> to share their ideas.>> Yahoo! Health> Looking for Love?>> Find relationship>> advice and answers.>> Real Food Group> on Yahoo! Groups>> What does real food>> mean to you?> .>> Read below;> -----> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884>> Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness>>> ,> I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have broughtto> bear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attentionto> the brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is amissing> link in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a serious> missing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field of> treatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter and> Cummings "Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders" and> "The Human Frontal Lobes" by and Cummings. In these books it is> clear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting and> controlling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques andits> users. There are further studies that point out the importance of the> control exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brainmodules.> QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference of> eye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.>> Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivityin> autism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in theright> direction. However if the out of control brain areas are responsiblefor> proper connectivity then studying them while they are out of controlis> apt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben iscorrect> in his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism are> particularly susceptible to coherence faults>> I have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence of> several well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, and> Autism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown byfMRI,> PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poorregulation> by prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studied> cases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure of> this control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlledby> the faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorlycontrolled> areas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,> rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into the> corral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of thefrontal> circuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding upthe> wild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helps> them recover!>> Hershel Toomim>> -------> Bruce>

[Guest guest]

Jack,

Your statement of the value of training sub-cortical drive issues first--or at least testing them--is right on target from my point of view.

I might as well also start the new year with my annual rant (if anyone cares) that if scientific proof convinced scientists, Galileo would be alive today.

All those who bravely continue stating that if ONLY we had some really good studies showing the effectiveness of NF, THEN the medical/therapist/insurance community would finally accept the modality and embrace it must never, I guess, have read Barry Sterman's early work on epilepsy done 40 years ago, Lubar's multiple studies published over a period of decades. Surely, with the superb studies of Peniston and Kulkowsky, which have been reproduced, we can at least be sure that neurofeedback is the treatment of choice for alcoholism...right?

Oh, that's right. The problem is that we don't have " large-scale, control-group, double-blind studies " in enough volume. The gold standard in research, right? So that's why use of multiple psychoactive medications to treat young children is the clinical/insurance approach of choice--because there are so many large-scale, control-group, double-blind studies (funded by all that drug company money) demonstrating the differential efficacy of this approach. There are...how many? Oh wait. None. As in zero. As in not one single study EVER published--ever even ATTEMPTED.

So perhaps the real problem is just that all our little outcome studies (the gold standard for many clinical fields) or ABA Crossover studies (also a gold standard, since it demonstrates an effect in both directions) just weren't published in the right journals. I know deep in my heart that JAMA is just waiting--peer reviewers holding their breath to finally get that truly great neurofeedback study that meets their standards so they can rush it into print. We all know that politics and disciplinary prejudices have absolutely nothing to do with what gets published where.

So while our more " scientific " brethren are holding their breath, waiting for the truly watershed study that will finally slip the blinders off the collegial world of mental health, let me remind the rest of you that even in the highly scientific MD-dominated, heavily-funded world of psychopharmacology, the " decision tree " doesn't seem to exist to any very useful degree. If you have ever had a loved one who went the medical route for help with anxiety or depression or attention problems, you have likely discovered that it has a very disconcerting " trial-and-error " feel to it. You try this drug...get no result. Try another...side-effects badly. Try another--ah, that seems to help...but still we haven't dealt with X or Y. So we add another drug, then another, then perhaps something to help deal with the side-effects.

In my own experience (which granted does not have a " scientific " and surely not a " clinical " education behind it), I am stuck with pure practical results-driven ways of looking at the problems brought to me. I have been forced to recognize that what works great with one client who has a very supportive family might not make a dent in another client whose family is broken, dysfunctional and primarily negatively focused. What helps one person with " generalized anxiety disorder " may actually make another client with the exact same diagnosis worse. But I believe, again based on my own paltry unpublished experience, that if I look at the brain and the client's subjective presentation and do so in the light of the relationships between symptom constellations and activation patterns which have been demonstrated by QEEG research, I am often able, by testing the options, to find something quite quickly that works well and moves the client in the desired direction.

For those who are not necessarily willing to spend the time to learn about sub-cortical drivers and EEG patterns or don't have hardware or software that allow them to actually look at the brain in any kind of detail, a generalized decision tree may make a lot of sense. I prefer the client-specific " decision tree " that I call a training plan.

End of rant. Happy new year to all.

Pete

Tell me if I'm wrong Pete, but that's the impression I got from the discussion of Tone issues in the level 2 workshop. If the client has a positive response to training that influences sub-cortical structures, train them first. This is assuming that all other variables agree with the training protocol (presenting symptoms, client history, rule-outs). Jack

.. -- Van Deusen

pvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Jack,

Your statement of the value of training sub-cortical drive issues first--or at least testing them--is right on target from my point of view.

I might as well also start the new year with my annual rant (if anyone cares) that if scientific proof convinced scientists, Galileo would be alive today.

All those who bravely continue stating that if ONLY we had some really good studies showing the effectiveness of NF, THEN the medical/therapist/insurance community would finally accept the modality and embrace it must never, I guess, have read Barry Sterman's early work on epilepsy done 40 years ago, Lubar's multiple studies published over a period of decades. Surely, with the superb studies of Peniston and Kulkowsky, which have been reproduced, we can at least be sure that neurofeedback is the treatment of choice for alcoholism...right?

Oh, that's right. The problem is that we don't have " large-scale, control-group, double-blind studies " in enough volume. The gold standard in research, right? So that's why use of multiple psychoactive medications to treat young children is the clinical/insurance approach of choice--because there are so many large-scale, control-group, double-blind studies (funded by all that drug company money) demonstrating the differential efficacy of this approach. There are...how many? Oh wait. None. As in zero. As in not one single study EVER published--ever even ATTEMPTED.

So perhaps the real problem is just that all our little outcome studies (the gold standard for many clinical fields) or ABA Crossover studies (also a gold standard, since it demonstrates an effect in both directions) just weren't published in the right journals. I know deep in my heart that JAMA is just waiting--peer reviewers holding their breath to finally get that truly great neurofeedback study that meets their standards so they can rush it into print. We all know that politics and disciplinary prejudices have absolutely nothing to do with what gets published where.

So while our more " scientific " brethren are holding their breath, waiting for the truly watershed study that will finally slip the blinders off the collegial world of mental health, let me remind the rest of you that even in the highly scientific MD-dominated, heavily-funded world of psychopharmacology, the " decision tree " doesn't seem to exist to any very useful degree. If you have ever had a loved one who went the medical route for help with anxiety or depression or attention problems, you have likely discovered that it has a very disconcerting " trial-and-error " feel to it. You try this drug...get no result. Try another...side-effects badly. Try another--ah, that seems to help...but still we haven't dealt with X or Y. So we add another drug, then another, then perhaps something to help deal with the side-effects.

In my own experience (which granted does not have a " scientific " and surely not a " clinical " education behind it), I am stuck with pure practical results-driven ways of looking at the problems brought to me. I have been forced to recognize that what works great with one client who has a very supportive family might not make a dent in another client whose family is broken, dysfunctional and primarily negatively focused. What helps one person with " generalized anxiety disorder " may actually make another client with the exact same diagnosis worse. But I believe, again based on my own paltry unpublished experience, that if I look at the brain and the client's subjective presentation and do so in the light of the relationships between symptom constellations and activation patterns which have been demonstrated by QEEG research, I am often able, by testing the options, to find something quite quickly that works well and moves the client in the desired direction.

For those who are not necessarily willing to spend the time to learn about sub-cortical drivers and EEG patterns or don't have hardware or software that allow them to actually look at the brain in any kind of detail, a generalized decision tree may make a lot of sense. I prefer the client-specific " decision tree " that I call a training plan.

End of rant. Happy new year to all.

Pete

Tell me if I'm wrong Pete, but that's the impression I got from the discussion of Tone issues in the level 2 workshop. If the client has a positive response to training that influences sub-cortical structures, train them first. This is assuming that all other variables agree with the training protocol (presenting symptoms, client history, rule-outs). Jack

.. -- Van Deusen

pvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

I would like to second that! If you are interested in

something, just throw it out there. Many of us are just learning

and every bit of information helps us learn.

It is intimidating but sometimes I just have to type it, close

my eyes and press send. Remember, no one really knows you!

Also, even the experts disagree on things so just because

someone disagrees with you does not mean that your questions was not valid.

I am on several boards but like this one because people post

quite a bit and most do not feel stupid asking questions.

My guess is that there are many more beginners like us than

experts and most of us just read and appreciate all views and opinions.

Best of luck to you!!! By the way, if you have not

had any real experience yet I can tell you that no matter what the medical

community thinks, I am sitting right next to all the proof I need for

now.

My son is happier, more engaged and doing better in school than

I could have imagined. I did use a supervisor and would recommend

getting someone on the board who uses the TLC or Pete to help you when you

begin treating real people until you get the hang of it.

Connie

From:

braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf

Of Bruce Z. Berman

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:33 PM

To: braintrainer

Subject: Re: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

Well-If

you hadn't offered your opinion this learning opportunity for both you and I

would not have come up. I'm now clearer on Hershel's point of view than I was

when we started.

Keep

on making the comments and asking the questions.

Bruce

-----

Original Message -----

From: bharney2002

To: braintrainer

Sent: Tuesday, January 01,

2008 6:54 PM

Subject: Re:

Protocol Decision Trees

I've been reading research articles on ADHD for

a couple of years now,

but after reading the comments you included by Hershel Toomim, and

Gismondi's initial message, I think I'll read for a couple more

years before offering my opinion next time - very educational.

>

>

> Re: Protocol Decision Trees

>

>

> Bruce,

>

> Can you elaborate on

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 4New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Healthy Eating

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> A place for parents

>

> to share their ideas.

>

> Yahoo! Health

> Looking for Love?

>

> Find relationship

>

> advice and answers.

>

> Real Food Group

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> What does real food

>

> mean to you?

> .

>

> Read below;

> -----

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884

>

> Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness

>

>

> ,

> I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have brought

to

> bear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attention

to

> the brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is a

missing

> link in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a serious

> missing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field of

> treatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter and

> Cummings " Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders "

and

> " The Human Frontal Lobes " by and Cummings. In these books

it is

> clear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting and

> controlling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques and

its

> users. There are further studies that point out the importance of the

> control exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brain

modules.

> QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference of

> eye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.

>

> Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivity

in

> autism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in the

right

> direction. However if the out of control brain areas are responsible

for

> proper connectivity then studying them while they are out of control

is

> apt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben is

correct

> in his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism are

> particularly susceptible to coherence faults

>

> I have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence of

> several well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, and

> Autism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown by

fMRI,

> PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poor

regulation

> by prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studied

> cases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure of

> this control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlled

by

> the faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorly

controlled

> areas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,

> rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into the

> corral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of the

frontal

> circuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding up

the

> wild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helps

> them recover!

>

> Hershel Toomim

>

> -------

> Bruce

>

[Guest guest]

I would like to second that! If you are interested in

something, just throw it out there. Many of us are just learning

and every bit of information helps us learn.

It is intimidating but sometimes I just have to type it, close

my eyes and press send. Remember, no one really knows you!

Also, even the experts disagree on things so just because

someone disagrees with you does not mean that your questions was not valid.

I am on several boards but like this one because people post

quite a bit and most do not feel stupid asking questions.

My guess is that there are many more beginners like us than

experts and most of us just read and appreciate all views and opinions.

Best of luck to you!!! By the way, if you have not

had any real experience yet I can tell you that no matter what the medical

community thinks, I am sitting right next to all the proof I need for

now.

My son is happier, more engaged and doing better in school than

I could have imagined. I did use a supervisor and would recommend

getting someone on the board who uses the TLC or Pete to help you when you

begin treating real people until you get the hang of it.

Connie

From:

braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf

Of Bruce Z. Berman

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:33 PM

To: braintrainer

Subject: Re: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

Well-If

you hadn't offered your opinion this learning opportunity for both you and I

would not have come up. I'm now clearer on Hershel's point of view than I was

when we started.

Keep

on making the comments and asking the questions.

Bruce

-----

Original Message -----

From: bharney2002

To: braintrainer

Sent: Tuesday, January 01,

2008 6:54 PM

Subject: Re:

Protocol Decision Trees

I've been reading research articles on ADHD for

a couple of years now,

but after reading the comments you included by Hershel Toomim, and

Gismondi's initial message, I think I'll read for a couple more

years before offering my opinion next time - very educational.

>

>

> Re: Protocol Decision Trees

>

>

> Bruce,

>

> Can you elaborate on

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 4New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Healthy Eating

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> A place for parents

>

> to share their ideas.

>

> Yahoo! Health

> Looking for Love?

>

> Find relationship

>

> advice and answers.

>

> Real Food Group

> on Yahoo! Groups

>

> What does real food

>

> mean to you?

> .

>

> Read below;

> -----

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofeedback/message/43884

>

> Re: [biofeedback] Core Factors of Connectivity Training Effectiveness

>

>

> ,

> I am impressed with the careful logical methodology you have brought

to

> bear on this difficult study. I am also impressed by their attention

to

> the brain modules responsible for specific functions. There is a

missing

> link in almost all EEG studies. To me, therefore there is a serious

> missing component to the ideas espoused by the experts in the field of

> treatment. I am impressed with the studies and books by Lichter and

> Cummings " Frontal-Subcortical Circuits in Psychiatric Disorders "

and

> " The Human Frontal Lobes " by and Cummings. In these books

it is

> clear that the prefrontal executive is primary in detecting and

> controlling problems and are largely ignored by QEEG techniques and

its

> users. There are further studies that point out the importance of the

> control exerted by these brain frontal functions on other brain

modules.

> QEEG tends to neglect the prefrontal areas because of interference of

> eye roll in EEG open eye data as well as the frontal lobe importance.

>

> Studies by Just have shown the importance of failures of connectivity

in

> autism so the prominence of connectivity studies is clearly in the

right

> direction. However if the out of control brain areas are responsible

for

> proper connectivity then studying them while they are out of control

is

> apt to be misleading. I think from Just's studies that Coben is

correct

> in his assessment that serious brain malformations like autism are

> particularly susceptible to coherence faults

>

> I have also done a literature search of the major area of incidence of

> several well recognized cognitive impairments, ADD, Schizophrenia, and

> Autism and the effect they have on various brain areas as shown by

fMRI,

> PET or SPECT studies. From these it is unavoidable that poor

regulation

> by prefrontal circuits is majorly implicated in 85% of all studied

> cases. The Executive is in control of most of the brain and failure of

> this control leads to wild activity in those modules being controlled

by

> the faulty prefrontal circuits. Concentration on these poorly

controlled

> areas is like closing the gate after the wild buffalo have stampeded,

> rounding up the wandering individuals and chasing them back into the

> corral. It is highly fortunate that the residual activity of the

frontal

> circuits monitors the activity of the wild ones so that rounding up

the

> wild ones shows the frontal circuits where they have failed and helps

> them recover!

>

> Hershel Toomim

>

> -------

> Bruce

>

[Guest guest]

Hi J.,

I'm new to this field too (and I'm a clinical psychologist too).

Another thing I like about " bottom-up " training is that it forms a

nice analog with psychoanalytic ( " depth " psychology) thinking about

psychopathology. Or, as the saying goes, when you practice

psychotherapy, " follow the affect. "

We don't attack defenses because we're know the person needs them,

until the deeper affective issues are worked through. Then the

defenses tend to flex all by themselves (can you tell I'm not a

cognitive-behaviorist?)

Or, if you don't like psychoanalysis, you can get to a similar place

through the Buddha! (Busy Brain = Ego, which is so busy thinking

thinking thinking that it tends to miss the forest)

Good luck with your neurofeedback studies.

Liz

> >

> > The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried

> Othmer

> > is in this forum from time to time..

> > or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/

> >

> > best from Øystein...)

> >

> >

> > 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO nickmammano@:

> > >

> > > I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised

> by

> > > trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I

> should

> > > not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably

> continues to be

> > > done.

> > >

> > > Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?

> > >

> > > I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer

> with one

> > > " client " . For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick

> and

> > > convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in

> any given

> > > situation.

> > >

> > > I know that the phrase " scientific credibility " makes some people on

> this

> > > list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a

> great

> > > systematic way to continuously winnow out the " bad " , or less

> effective. ones

> > > and improve on those that work.

> > >

> > > Not quite the same as a " double-blind study " , refereed and published

> in a

> > > publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me)

> baffling

> > > resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.

> > >

> > > nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics

> > > (title listed so you know " where I'm coming from " )

> > >

> > > **

> > >

> > > Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to

> > > compare them with mine.

> > > Thanks

> > > --Chris

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > LCSW Øystein Larsen

> > mob.+47 90143389

> > fax. +47 33462750

> > Biofeedback in Scandinavia

> > Clinics, training and equipment

> > Thought Technology

> > Roshi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Connie

i'm sure others will have a different opinion to mine.I find the whole sweet spot concept elusive and impossible to find practically. While personally not invested enough in the approach I've often thought that using a difference spectrum as an EEG assessment tool and lloking for a pattern in relation to reward frequency, might shine some light on this difficult notion. Mark

RE: Protocol Decision Trees

Erlend,

I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it.

Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency?

Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities?

I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues.

The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help.

Thanks, Connie

From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees

I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.

Regards

Erlend

Norway

Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..

or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/

best from Øystein...)

2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:

I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done.

Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?

I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation.

I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.

nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics

(title listed so you know "where I'm coming from")

Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks--

-- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

Hi Connie

i'm sure others will have a different opinion to mine.I find the whole sweet spot concept elusive and impossible to find practically. While personally not invested enough in the approach I've often thought that using a difference spectrum as an EEG assessment tool and lloking for a pattern in relation to reward frequency, might shine some light on this difficult notion. Mark

RE: Protocol Decision Trees

Erlend,

I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it.

Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency?

Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities?

I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues.

The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help.

Thanks, Connie

From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees

I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.

Regards

Erlend

Norway

Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..

or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/

best from Øystein...)

2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:

I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done.

Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?

I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation.

I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.

nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics

(title listed so you know "where I'm coming from")

Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks--

-- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

Connie,You ask for advice "on finding the optimal reward frequency" and "using the protocols for learning disabilities". I understand your need. However, each brain is so different. The child may have learning disability but depending on other factors that you discover with the TLC assessment you would benefit in tailoring the training to the individual. Did you consider requesting 's help to determine the best training plan?I have been more efficient since I am discussing my TLC profiles with to determin the best protocols from the particularity of the individual brain. After doing the TLC with a client (in fact I have done the same thing with myself, my husband and my children) I first analyse the profile trying to figure out the best protocols from my training with and my growing experience and send the TLC profile to . I make a phone appointment and discuss the best training plan for the client. The discussion with him is really helping me to learn fast, be more efficient with my clients, and more excited about neurofeedback training.Suzanne Daysuzanne.day@...Ph. F. web: www.wisechoiceeducationalservices.comOn Jan 5, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Connie Welsh wrote:Erlend, I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it. Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency? Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities? I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues. The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help. Thanks, Connie From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.RegardsErlendNorway Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/ best from Øystein...) 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done. Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense? I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation. I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing. nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from") Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks-- -- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

Connie,You ask for advice "on finding the optimal reward frequency" and "using the protocols for learning disabilities". I understand your need. However, each brain is so different. The child may have learning disability but depending on other factors that you discover with the TLC assessment you would benefit in tailoring the training to the individual. Did you consider requesting 's help to determine the best training plan?I have been more efficient since I am discussing my TLC profiles with to determin the best protocols from the particularity of the individual brain. After doing the TLC with a client (in fact I have done the same thing with myself, my husband and my children) I first analyse the profile trying to figure out the best protocols from my training with and my growing experience and send the TLC profile to . I make a phone appointment and discuss the best training plan for the client. The discussion with him is really helping me to learn fast, be more efficient with my clients, and more excited about neurofeedback training.Suzanne Daysuzanne.day@...Ph. F. web: www.wisechoiceeducationalservices.comOn Jan 5, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Connie Welsh wrote:Erlend, I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it. Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency? Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities? I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues. The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help. Thanks, Connie From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.RegardsErlendNorway Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/ best from Øystein...) 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done. Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense? I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation. I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing. nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from") Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks-- -- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

Connie,You ask for advice "on finding the optimal reward frequency" and "using the protocols for learning disabilities". I understand your need. However, each brain is so different. The child may have learning disability but depending on other factors that you discover with the TLC assessment you would benefit in tailoring the training to the individual. Did you consider requesting 's help to determine the best training plan?I have been more efficient since I am discussing my TLC profiles with to determin the best protocols from the particularity of the individual brain. After doing the TLC with a client (in fact I have done the same thing with myself, my husband and my children) I first analyse the profile trying to figure out the best protocols from my training with and my growing experience and send the TLC profile to . I make a phone appointment and discuss the best training plan for the client. The discussion with him is really helping me to learn fast, be more efficient with my clients, and more excited about neurofeedback training.Suzanne Daysuzanne.day@...Ph. F. web: www.wisechoiceeducationalservices.comOn Jan 5, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Connie Welsh wrote:Erlend, I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it. Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency? Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities? I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues. The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help. Thanks, Connie From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.RegardsErlendNorway Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/ best from Øystein...) 2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done. Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense? I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation. I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing. nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics (title listed so you know "where I'm coming from") Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks-- -- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi

[Guest guest]

The sweet spots are unique to each individual. It is found by using IIR filters to reward around 80% of the time a frequency that is found by varying the reward frequencies up and down based on interviewing the client many times during a sessions. The questions get at the optimal relaxation/arousal continuum. There are both inhibits and rewards. Sites are chosen via symptom and client response. since the scalp placements are measuring the relationship between two sites its not really "a" sweet spot but rather sweet spots.

One can of course use spectrum analyzers and peripheral biofeedback measures to look for non subjective correlates but it is client subjective response that is the prime determinant.

Bruce

RE: Protocol Decision Trees

Erlend,

I am very interested in Sue Othmer’s protocols. I am trying to find the optimal reward frequency with myself and am having a hard time. I figure if I can’t find it, I can’t help anyone else find it.

Do you have any advice on finding that optimal reward frequency?

Do you have any experience with using the protocols with learning disabilities?

I most likely will take her training next but most likely not for 6 months or so but in the mean time, I may play around a bit. My son is getting so much better with his ADD using her original C3 beta protocol. However, he also has a verbal IQ which is significantly higher than his perceptual IQ which my indicate right brain issues (TLC does confirm this). Also, he has many executive function issues.

The C3 beta training is helping so much but I can help think that some of her advanced protocols could really help too. I think coherence from front to back could be an issue and that these protocols could help.

Thanks, Connie

From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf Of erlendSent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:41 AMTo: braintrainer Subject: SV: Protocol Decision Trees

I use Sue Othmers protocol decision tree extensively and it works beautifully. It is, in my opinion, absolutely not recommended to be used without attending to a course learning Othmers approach. But used in a proper way it is a very powerful tool to be used with many disorders.

Regards

Erlend

Norway

Fra: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer Emne: Re: Protocol Decision Trees

The best I ever seen was made by Othmer...I suppose Siegfried Othmer is in this forum from time to time..

or you can have a look at their website http://www.eeginfo.com/

best from Øystein...)

2007/12/31, NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano>:

I was not aware that there were protocol decision trees devised by trainers on this site. They are a great idea and, on reflection, I should not have been surprised that it is being done, and probably continues to be done.

Are they proprietary -- even in an informal sense?

I have no interest in them personally because I'm a home trainer with one "client". For most others on the list they clearly provide a quick and convenient way to select a reasonable or effective protocol(s) in any given situation.

I know that the phrase "scientific credibility" makes some people on this list shudder but sharing and comparing listmember's protocols is a great systematic way to continuously winnow out the "bad", or less effective. ones and improve on those that work. Not quite the same as a "double-blind study", refereed and published in a publication with some credibility, but considering the (to me) baffling resistance to that kind of study, it's the next best thing.

nick mammano PhD. Chemical Physics

(title listed so you know "where I'm coming from")

Can anyone share their protocol decesion trees with me. I want to compare them with mine.Thanks--

-- LCSW Øystein Larsenmob.+47 90143389fax. +47 33462750Biofeedback in ScandinaviaClinics, training and equipmentThought TechnologyRoshi