Re: QEEG and TLC

[Guest guest]

I was struggling for a term to use so I'm open to other terminology. In my view the TLC is based on characteristics of the EEG such as ratios of band widths to one another, shape of the EEG, %age representation of bandwidths, amplitude etc.

The other point I would have added is that in using the TLC it has never failed to provide useful training protocols. I have witnessed colleagues who have used QEEGs left scratching their heads as they have found nothing of significance.

Mark Baddeley

Re: QEEG and TLC

Mark,Can you say what this means?5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Also -- if the EEG is supposed to be quite stable over time for an individual, what would be a reason that this didn't turn up in a QEEG? (or TLC assessment, for that matter)?ThanksLiz

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Baddeley <baddeleyhermes (DOT) net.au> wrote:

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training. Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Mark Baddeley

[Guest guest]

Mark,I don't know much about QEEGs, but I just think it's odd, in that it's the same brain --- meaning: if a TLC assessment figures out a theta/beta ratio for you, couldn't you see what theta is and beta is in certain areas, as per the QEEG, and figure out the ratio?

Know what I mean? I understand the QEEG is based on a normative model, but still there's gotta be some raw EEG data there that they're working from, just as in the TLC assessment there's raw EEG data that that software is working from.

However as I said I don't really know what kinds of computations are being made on the QEEG. I know that when I took a workshop with the s in Canada they talked about QEEGs all the time and how you wind up with various ratios, etc., that didn't seem THAT different from what you wind up with when you do a TLC assessment.

Could it be that the QEEG is more " raw " and you're supposed to do more work afterward to figure out all that stuff that the TLC does for you with its software?This is all pretty theoretical for me because I knew instantly when I heard talk about doing QEEGs that I'd never in my life be doing one!

Liz

I was struggling for a term to use so I'm open to other terminology. In my view the TLC is based on characteristics of the EEG such as ratios of band widths to one another, shape of the EEG, %age representation of bandwidths, amplitude etc.

The other point I would have added is that in using the TLC it has never failed to provide useful training protocols. I have witnessed colleagues who have used QEEGs left scratching their heads as they have found nothing of significance.

Mark Baddeley

Re: QEEG and TLC

Mark,Can you say what this means?5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Also -- if the EEG is supposed to be quite stable over time for an individual, what would be a reason that this didn't turn up in a QEEG? (or TLC assessment, for that matter)?ThanksLiz

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training. Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Mark Baddeley

[Guest guest]

There are QEEGs that look at ratios. I know practitioners who even though their software has the capability do not consider ratios. I don't know about QEEgs extensively.

The examples I've looked at do not seem to consider the numeric value of the ratio although it may be possible to drill down to that degree. I think it would be interesting if someone with the ability constructed a full cap software based on the TLC.

Mark Baddeley

Re: QEEG and TLC

Mark,Can you say what this means?5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Also -- if the EEG is supposed to be quite stable over time for an individual, what would be a reason that this didn't turn up in a QEEG? (or TLC assessment, for that matter)?ThanksLiz

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Baddeley <baddeleyhermes (DOT) net.au> wrote:

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training. Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Mark Baddeley

[Guest guest]

Dear Mark and .

Most of QEEG software's provides you with the basic data you get in Bio Review that is absolute amplitude in uV, and if you work more with bio Review, you will get as well relative amplitude.

QEEG software's in general will provide numerical data about amplitude in absolute power scales and relative power scales, some provides some ratios. Other doesn't.

TLC and sQEEG1.4 are developed specially for Neurofeedback so they provide, all what you need to have for the protocol decision process. You can easily get to know if you are facing Tone issues, Processing, Filtering, etc. Just remember that TLC and sQEEG 1.4 works in pair of Electrodes and takes EEG data in 3 minutes per pair of electrodes. That is EC. EO and Task. So we don't have intrahemispheric Coherence information, as we are not recording 19 or 21 sites at the same time. Other than this the time delay has not importance at all. (Epileptic Disorders are other exception. But I am sure these clients have already a 21 EEG CH Studies with polygraph or a QEEG).

The sQEEG1.4 HR PRO, process that data in the way TLC does, inform about ratios, coherence in pairs of electrodes, 168 brain maps about all frequencies in Cut off 1 Hz, in Relative Amplitude and Absolute Amplitude ( NOT POWER) and Graphics that so many that I cant write here. But you can see in this demo what you can do.

There is also a Neuropsychological Assessment with a Graphics System based on Amen work, (with his blessing of course.)

Protocol desicion process involves a correlation withNeurophysiological and Neuropsychological patterns, that you also know as subjective TLC. Once you gather both Objective and Subjective Data you reach the stage of protocol desicion.

I can forward back channel full sQEEG studies captured so you can see for your self in detail, the information you get that will guide you to the protocol decision process. Of course AT LEAST requires that you have basic skills in TLC assessment and the process TLC teach you to find which protocols are the best for your client.

Next link is where to find general information about the Robotic Assessment with Dual Monitor System with Bio Explorer and how to do in 19 sites as sQEEG1.4 does.

http://www.qeeg.com.ar/Asist_eng.htm

Here is the link to the demo flash online.

http://www.qeeg.com.ar/Asist_eng.htm

If you need more info contact backchannel.

Best Regards

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.

2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some

suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a

protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training.

Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.

Mark Baddeley -- Dr. Rocatti, M.D.

qdssystems@... http://www.qeeg.com.ar

QDS SystemsBiosignal Research Tools

[Guest guest]

Mark,

I'm glad you brought that up! I have the Mini Q and I tend to scratch my head alot.....I would love to learn how to do the TLC's to compare it with the Mini Q...I have questioned the Q for a long time....I just did a Q on a 14 year old RADS boy today....it looked pretty clean believe it or not.

Kim

Brain Wellness Center

Re: QEEG and TLC

Mark,Can you say what this means?5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Also -- if the EEG is supposed to be quite stable over time for an individual, what would be a reason that this didn't turn up in a QEEG? (or TLC assessment, for that matter)?ThanksLiz

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Baddeley <baddeleyhermes (DOT) net.au> wrote:

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training. Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Mark Baddeley

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim

Yes, I beleive it. That appears to be the problem with some QEEGs. Nothing in the EEG gets identified even though there is a clear problem.

Mark Baddeley

Re: QEEG and TLC

Mark,Can you say what this means?5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Also -- if the EEG is supposed to be quite stable over time for an individual, what would be a reason that this didn't turn up in a QEEG? (or TLC assessment, for that matter)?ThanksLiz

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Baddeley <baddeleyhermes (DOT) net.au> wrote:

I've been mulling the following over:1. I have colleagues who regularly do QEEGs. Some report that even though clients present with clear clinical conditions, the QEEG does not show normative excesses.2. Some clients have a number of QEEGs on different systems ie different hardware and databases. There can be no concordance between the various QEEgs although sometimes a particlar EEG will seem to provide some suggestive training protocols when symtoms and neurophysiology are considered.3. I can see an arguement for doing a QEEG in complex presentations.4. It would seem a good step that if a QEEG has been used to provide a protocol at a site or a pair of sites that a TLC also be done at these sites before training commences. In that way there is EEG assessment information derived from the software and hardware that will be used in training. Concordance between the suggested QEEG protocol and the TLC protocol can be assessed and trainining decisions further refined.5. The TLC provides additional information not from a database but from EEG metrics.Mark Baddeley