Re: Protocol Decision Trees

[Guest guest]

Pete & Bruce,

If I may remember, - not too many NFB sessions lately - more than one

year ago I wrote a subjective and informal theory which I called the "Arousal Theory"

from where I took the basis to create The arousal scale (you may look for it at the

files section in this discussion group). From my humble point of view I consider this

as a very good starting point for the decision tree protocols.

One of the main goals for all of us, as NFB trainers is to determine our client's SMR

or lymbic system rhythm (LSR) if you prefer to call it that way. If you "almost" know which is

the better frequency to train that particular client at T3-T4, you may be able to take

your client's ANS to it best performance rhythm (or frequency).

I'm very used to see hundreds of people for the past 6 years reporting excellent results

from the first 5 sessions at T3-T4. My point is you train the best rhythm for your client his

ANS will respond with a lot of good changes as a consequence of a better self regulation.

Once you set this specific rhythm to your client's brain (10 or more sessions) you may follow

to work with your original plan based on the assessment.

This is just another approach to get to the same expected spot, sometimes not too sweet.

Hope this may contribute in something.

kind regards,

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@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: braintrainer@ yahoogroups. com] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer@ yahoogroups. comEmne: 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@ yahoo.com>:

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

-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail (DOT) comhttp://www.brain- trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Guest guest]

, When you say training T3 T4 is this two channel or the Othmer's one channel with reference to T4?

Mark

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@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: braintrainer@ yahoogroups. com] På vegne av Øystein LarsenSendt: 1. januar 2008 20:43Til: braintrainer@ yahoogroups. comEmne: 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@ yahoo.com>:

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

-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail (DOT) comhttp://www.brain- trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Guest guest]

Some have postulated the reason more neuroscience

research is using fMRI is because journal editors like

all the pretty colors.

--- " Bruce Z. Berman " wrote:

>

> 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

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ