Re: sweet spots and assessments

[Guest guest]

Nick,

So-called sweet-spot training is always done with bipolar interhemispheric montages, so there's really no way to know what exactly is happening during the training (e.g. are amplitudes changing? on which side? are phase relationships changing?). The protocol is always (as of the last time I heard it presented) to inhibit all frequencies--that is, to reduce the difference in amplitude between the two sites in bands that cover the whole standard training EEG--and, within that band, to reward one particular frequency band ranging from less than 1 Hz in width to about 3 Hz--that is, to increase the difference between the two sites at that frequency, called the " sweet spot " . The sites are almost invariably T3/T4 to start and, having found the magic frequency between those sites, then perhaps to shift to other bipolar site pairs (with, often, slight changes in the sweet spot frequency).

Since one of the main attractions of sweet spot training is that it does not require any information at all about brain activity or activation patterns, not only are these data not gathered--they CAN'T be gathered with the de rigeur bipolar montage. The Q or the TLC essentially start from the other end: they begin by looking at the brain at some degree of detail and identify relationships that differentiate it from norms (QEEG) or describe it in terms of what it would do well or with difficulty (TLC) to identify any of those relationships that might, if changed, help move the client in a desired direction.

So, since sweet-spot protocols aren't really developed--they are the same for all clients with the possible exception of what exactly the frequency will be--and brain-based training hypotheses are different for each client based on what the brain shows and what the client wants to change, any correlation would be purely by chance. If, for example, I see a client who has large asymmetries between T3 and T4, then I will often try a T3/T4 bipolar squash of all frequencies, training down the difference between the two sides. But a sweet spot trainer would use that approach even if the two sites had exactly the same amplitudes in all frequencies.

Offhand, I can't think of any particular situation in which I would train to increase the difference between two sites in a particular frequency. It's been suggested that this could work with an alpha asymmetry (alpha higher on the left than the right) in a depressed client, but in a bipolar protocol the difference would already be very large. If I used a two-channel montage, then I could actually choose which side I wanted higher and track whether it was changing or not. With a bipolar one-channel montage, I can't control the direction of the change, so I could easily end up making the problem worse rather than better.

Perhaps I don't have a good enough knowledge of the brain or a good enough imagination. I can't think of any particular basis for doing this kind of training. Sweet spot trainers can't think of any particular basis for NOT doing it. It " stabilizes " the brain (that was one explanation I heard multiple times) and ALL brains need to be stabilized. It breaks up phase relationships (increasing the difference between two sites in a particular frequency could do that), and all brains have a narrow band in which phase relationships are too high and breaking it up fixes things.

The bottom line, though, is that adherents of sweet spot training--and those of neurocare pro and those of LENS training and those of Q-based or TLC-based or Margaret Ayers or literally any of the dozens of training approaches--see results that reinforce what they do and what they believe. Perhaps all of us also write off or turn a blind eye to those clients who don't respond to our approaches. So whether they sync up or have absolutely no relation one to another, we keep using them.

Don't know if that explains what you wanted to know or not, but those are some thoughts.

Pete

I don't want to beat a dead horse but this is of some real and personal interest to me.

Is there any correlation between protocols developed from " sweet spots " and those based on QEEG's or TLC assessments? If not, why not?

nick mammano

.._._,___ -- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...

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

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

1. How exactly does one provide inhibits that are not bipolar in a bipolar montage? The only data coming into or out of the amplifier is data on the sum or difference of the two sites.

2. If I understand your response ( " dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits...is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies " ), we could restate it to say, " you ask the client how he/she feels in response to different things you try. " It still seems to me that the decision about what protocol/montage to use " does not require any information about BRAIN ACTIVITY or ACTIVATION PATTERNS, " which I think spoke to the original question.

3. As you know from having taken the workshops on the TLC, it too focuses on finding training approaches that work for the client (based hopefully on client responses in those cases where the client can/does respond). My unclarified point was that the montage is always the same, regardless of what types of activation exist in the brain (

e.g lots of high frequencies, lots of slow frequencies, poor alpha blocking, alpha asymmetries, inability to produce alpha, slow alpha peaks, etc.) since none of that is known. And the protocol is always the same, though adjusted in response (hopefully) to client feedback, regardless of what brain activation patterns might exist.

Pete

1: It's always done with bipolar: Rewards are bipolar but inhibits could be otherwise.

2: It does not require any information about brain activity or activation patterns: Information about the brain is required just not norm based information. It's dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits. The informtion is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies.

3: protocols are the same for all clients: More individualization and tayloring based on client response, shifting of rewards and excursions of inhibits is going on than in the Q and non normative data based mini Q types of approaches such as the TLC.

Bruce

.. _._,___ -- Van Deusen

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

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

1. How exactly does one provide inhibits that are not bipolar in a bipolar montage? The only data coming into or out of the amplifier is data on the sum or difference of the two sites.

2. If I understand your response ( " dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits...is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies " ), we could restate it to say, " you ask the client how he/she feels in response to different things you try. " It still seems to me that the decision about what protocol/montage to use " does not require any information about BRAIN ACTIVITY or ACTIVATION PATTERNS, " which I think spoke to the original question.

3. As you know from having taken the workshops on the TLC, it too focuses on finding training approaches that work for the client (based hopefully on client responses in those cases where the client can/does respond). My unclarified point was that the montage is always the same, regardless of what types of activation exist in the brain (

e.g lots of high frequencies, lots of slow frequencies, poor alpha blocking, alpha asymmetries, inability to produce alpha, slow alpha peaks, etc.) since none of that is known. And the protocol is always the same, though adjusted in response (hopefully) to client feedback, regardless of what brain activation patterns might exist.

Pete

1: It's always done with bipolar: Rewards are bipolar but inhibits could be otherwise.

2: It does not require any information about brain activity or activation patterns: Information about the brain is required just not norm based information. It's dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits. The informtion is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies.

3: protocols are the same for all clients: More individualization and tayloring based on client response, shifting of rewards and excursions of inhibits is going on than in the Q and non normative data based mini Q types of approaches such as the TLC.

Bruce

.. _._,___ -- Van Deusen

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

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

1. How exactly does one provide inhibits that are not bipolar in a bipolar montage? The only data coming into or out of the amplifier is data on the sum or difference of the two sites.

2. If I understand your response ( " dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits...is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies " ), we could restate it to say, " you ask the client how he/she feels in response to different things you try. " It still seems to me that the decision about what protocol/montage to use " does not require any information about BRAIN ACTIVITY or ACTIVATION PATTERNS, " which I think spoke to the original question.

3. As you know from having taken the workshops on the TLC, it too focuses on finding training approaches that work for the client (based hopefully on client responses in those cases where the client can/does respond). My unclarified point was that the montage is always the same, regardless of what types of activation exist in the brain (

e.g lots of high frequencies, lots of slow frequencies, poor alpha blocking, alpha asymmetries, inability to produce alpha, slow alpha peaks, etc.) since none of that is known. And the protocol is always the same, though adjusted in response (hopefully) to client feedback, regardless of what brain activation patterns might exist.

Pete

1: It's always done with bipolar: Rewards are bipolar but inhibits could be otherwise.

2: It does not require any information about brain activity or activation patterns: Information about the brain is required just not norm based information. It's dynamical information in regards to both to optimal frequency and excursions in the inhibits. The informtion is client interview responses and feedback around the excursions and shifting reward frequencies.

3: protocols are the same for all clients: More individualization and tayloring based on client response, shifting of rewards and excursions of inhibits is going on than in the Q and non normative data based mini Q types of approaches such as the TLC.

Bruce

.. _._,___ -- Van Deusen

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

[Guest guest]

1: It's two chanel now! The other chanel that monitors inhibit

excursions does not need to be set up for biplar. I'm seeking

clarification from Sieg as to what they now do with this second

chanel.

2: One important feature of the approach your still missing is that

the rewards and inhibits are set to provide feedback based on

dynamical thresholding. In other words part of the feedback is based

on the frequent changes that occure in the actual EEG durring the

session. The questioning a responses from the clients is also

dynamical in the sense that it happens so frequently with adustments

of the targeting based also on verbal responses.

3: The feedback loop in terms of varying based on client response is

much faster with less delay time and more frequent than in the TLC or

any other approach I know of yet.

Targeting and thresholding is being changed multiple times durring a

session in part due to changes that are occuring in the dynamics of

the EEG. Two chanels with a number of montages are also being used

which also in part is due to changes that are occuring in the

dynamics of the EEG. Research has shown that not only location

specific and EEG training activation pattern specific changes occure

durring training. Other locations and activation patterns also show

changes.

In other words just because you don't specificaly train " lots of

high frequencies, lots of slow frequencies, poor alpha blocking,

alpha asymmetries, inability

to produce alpha, slow alpha peaks, etc, etc) " based on the results

of a non training statistical procedure like QEEG or TLC does not

mean they are also not shifting durring training as a result of the

Othmers approach.

Bruce

>

> > 1: It's always done with bipolar: Rewards are bipolar but

inhibits

> > could be otherwise.

> > 2: It does not require any information about brain activity or

activation

> > patterns: Information about the brain is required just not norm

based

> > information. It's dynamical information in regards to both to

optimal

> > frequency and excursions in the inhibits. The informtion is

client

> > interview responses and feedback around the excursions and

shifting reward

> > frequencies.

> > 3: protocols are the same for all clients: More individualization

and

> > tayloring based on client response, shifting of rewards and

excursions of

> > inhibits is going on than in the Q and non normative data based

mini Q

> > types of approaches such as the TLC.

> >

> > Bruce

> > .

> > _._,___

> >

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

1: It's two chanel now! The other chanel that monitors inhibit

excursions does not need to be set up for biplar. I'm seeking

clarification from Sieg as to what they now do with this second

chanel.

2: One important feature of the approach your still missing is that

the rewards and inhibits are set to provide feedback based on

dynamical thresholding. In other words part of the feedback is based

on the frequent changes that occure in the actual EEG durring the

session. The questioning a responses from the clients is also

dynamical in the sense that it happens so frequently with adustments

of the targeting based also on verbal responses.

3: The feedback loop in terms of varying based on client response is

much faster with less delay time and more frequent than in the TLC or

any other approach I know of yet.

Targeting and thresholding is being changed multiple times durring a

session in part due to changes that are occuring in the dynamics of

the EEG. Two chanels with a number of montages are also being used

which also in part is due to changes that are occuring in the

dynamics of the EEG. Research has shown that not only location

specific and EEG training activation pattern specific changes occure

durring training. Other locations and activation patterns also show

changes.

In other words just because you don't specificaly train " lots of

high frequencies, lots of slow frequencies, poor alpha blocking,

alpha asymmetries, inability

to produce alpha, slow alpha peaks, etc, etc) " based on the results

of a non training statistical procedure like QEEG or TLC does not

mean they are also not shifting durring training as a result of the

Othmers approach.

Bruce

>

> > 1: It's always done with bipolar: Rewards are bipolar but

inhibits

> > could be otherwise.

> > 2: It does not require any information about brain activity or

activation

> > patterns: Information about the brain is required just not norm

based

> > information. It's dynamical information in regards to both to

optimal

> > frequency and excursions in the inhibits. The informtion is

client

> > interview responses and feedback around the excursions and

shifting reward

> > frequencies.

> > 3: protocols are the same for all clients: More individualization

and

> > tayloring based on client response, shifting of rewards and

excursions of

> > inhibits is going on than in the Q and non normative data based

mini Q

> > types of approaches such as the TLC.

> >

> > Bruce

> > .

> > _._,___

> >

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>