Re: Squash protocol

[Guest guest]

Deb,

This is not a car driving between distant rest stops! You don't have to hold it! Just assume (it's a pretty safe assumption) that if you don't understand something there are probably a bunch of others among your 500 plus colleagues here who also don't understand it and will appreciate you asking (so they don't have to feel dumb). And there are a bunch of others on the list who will know the answer and appreciate you asking (so they can answer it, which makes all of us feel good.) Here's my answer (and boy, do I feel good!)

Squash and Squish are both variants of the same protocol. Both are based on the recognition that nearly all brain training is downtraining. The vast majority of brains produce too much energy, and clinical improvement usually follows a quieting of the brain, a reduction in overall energy. So even if you think you are training beta up and theta down, for example, you are usually training both down, but the more active frequency goes down more, and the relationship between the two improves.

Squash and squish are both two-channel trainings, both done with summed channels (adding the signals together), so both provide a single amplitude number that covers a large area of brain geography. In both cases, the job is to train them down. So the client has a simple task (usually a good idea in training): Here is a single number. Make it go down.

The squash covers 2-38 Hz as its band, so it literally "squashes" the whole functional EEG band, and this usually quiets the brain and mind. It is not used when someone already has low amplitudes.

The squish covers any specific, smaller band within the EEG (e.g. 2-5 Hz., 15-38 Hz.), so it squishes the activity in that band out into other frequencies.

There is also a "squoosh" developed by Victor Stirnimann, which is a variant on the squish. I'd be interested in hearing how his experience has gone with that protocol (it was positive initially), so I hope he'll post and explain it to us again and tell us how it is working. It was developed on BioExplorer as a squish with a variance element to it.

Pete

Van DeusenBrainTrainer ()16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157305/321-1595

Squash protocol

I've tried to hold my question figuring it would get answered somehow but I really can't wait. What exactly is a squash protocol? Is is inhibitiing a bandwidth? Is it the difference?EdLangham@... wrote:

Pete, et al

I'm very low in knowledge electronic. Yes, we are somehow training the difference, I guess. That's what people say. And when I do that, to apparent client satisfaction, whether they are underaroused, overaroused or whatever, the spectral display usually shows even voltages in all frequencies, instead of a roller coaster display. So my fantasy is that I'm encouraging desynchronization, or else I have no idea what.

I train all types of folks and all types of afflictions. There are spectral displays that fool me, and I then consult on the lists....certain drugs create a lot of low stuff or high stuff and one might think a client is underaroused when it's vice versa, etc. My cerebral palsied highly anxious guy wasn't helped by anything until I read listservs that led me to a squash protocol, for instance.

All I know is, I don't appear to hurt anyone with this protocol and it appears to work fast and well for the overwhelming majority. Somebody like Pete wil have to figure out why it works and then tell me. But I'm lovin' it.

[Guest guest]

Hey Byron

If you mean 25% beta/hi-beta showing on the " heads " page, I'd pack the guy

in ice right away !. If you're speaking of coherence, it could be

considered hi but I've seen coherences at 40 and 50. If it is excessive,

however, everywhere, I'd look to see if the back was higher than the front.

That would be my first choice, try attempt to calm down the part of the

brain that's usually " alphaland " and doesn't utilize all that beta / hi-beta

stuff. Can you tell us a little more about this person.

Good luck

[Guest guest]

Coherence levels, what we might expect them to be, have changed since the advent of BioExplorer and BrainMaster 2.0SE. Both use more accurate calculations for higher frequency coherences (SMR, Beta, High-Beta), so those numbers are naturally higher than the "20" we used as a cutoff in the TLC Assess 1.9A version. I don't consider it problematic if the numbers are below about 45-50 for SMR, 40 for Beta or maybe 35 for high-beta, if you are using the BioExplorer or BM20SE versions of the assessment.

The best way to train down fast-wave coherence is to train down fast-wave amplitudes. One of the reports in my package of protocols (fastdown2 or something like that) actually tracks coherence and peak frequency in one of its graphs, because they so often respond to amplitude-down training.

If you do have front/back beta reversals, however, please remember that you DON'T train the beta down unless there is sufficient alpha already there. If you do, you run a pretty significant risk of making the client MORE anxious quite quickly. If the alpha/theta ratio isn't at least above 1.0, preferably closer to 1.5, at P3 or P4, then training alpha (or alpha coherence) up is probably a better approach.

Pete

Van DeusenBrainTrainer ()16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157305/321-1595

RE: Squash protocol

Hey ByronIf you mean 25% beta/hi-beta showing on the "heads" page, I'd pack the guyin ice right away !. If you're speaking of coherence, it could beconsidered hi but I've seen coherences at 40 and 50. If it is excessive,however, everywhere, I'd look to see if the back was higher than the front.That would be my first choice, try attempt to calm down the part of thebrain that's usually "alphaland" and doesn't utilize all that beta / hi-betastuff. Can you tell us a little more about this person.Good luck

[Guest guest]

Indeed, ,

When Dan devised this method, he was sqaushing on the differential error,

between the font and rear of the brain, across the commissures of the left

and right hemispheres. The bipolar method is the more efficient method,

as this doesn't tamper with coherence. This says to wideband squash it all,

because it is all error. Dan Maust groked this method, on the ROSHI, btw,

but it will work, anywhere, albeit a bit more slowly.

Good seeing you, yesterday,

Best,

/ChuckD....

http://roshijournal.com/-----Original Message----- From: Sent: Jul 24, 2004 12:20 PM Cc: Van Deusen Subject: Re: Squash protocol

Pete,

I combine the amplitued reduction with Variability reduction. I track both during training and will switch back and forth ( or do both at the same time) depending on what happens in sessions. I have been using BE's correlation object to track the correlation of variability between hemispheres. What I have noticed so far (not worked on training this yet just observing) is that people with high coherence also have very high correlation in terms of variability. It is quite clear when tracking it on a trend object. I am considering attempting to train that value down with some clients who have had a difficult time lowering coherence.

At 9:26 PM -0400 6/21/04, Van Deusen wrote:

,

The classic squash first used by Dan Maust used F7/CP5 in channel one and F8/CP6 in channel two. I usually prefer to use two monopolar montages (like F3/A1 and Fz/A1). I look for the place where activation is highest and, especially if there are relatively contiguous areas, I put those together. I know a lot of folks use a frontal squash with very impulsive clients, and I've had good luck with that.

I think has done a fair amount of squash or windowed squash with his population. , what's your latest-greatest in this area now? Are you working more with variance or still primarily with amplitude?

Pete

Van DeusenBrainTrainer ()16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157305/321-1595

Squash protocol

I've tried to hold my question figuring it would get answered somehow but I really can't wait. What exactly is a squash protocol? Is is inhibitiing a bandwidth? Is it the difference?EdLangham@... wrote:

P { MARGIN: 0px }

Pete, et al

I'm very low in knowledge electronic. Yes, we are somehow training the difference, I guess. That's what people say. And when I do that, to apparent client satisfaction, whether they are underaroused, overaroused or whatever, the spectral display usually shows even voltages in all frequencies, instead of a roller coaster display. So my fantasy is that I'm encouraging desynchronization, or else I have no idea what.

I train all types of folks and all types of afflictions. There are spectral displays that fool me, and I then consult on the lists....certain drugs create a lot of low stuff or high stuff and one might think a client is underaroused when it's vice versa, etc. My cerebral palsied highly anxious guy wasn't helped by anything until I read listservs that led me to a squash protocol, for instance.

All I know is, I don't appear to hurt anyone with this protocol and it appears to work fast and well for the overwhelming majority. Somebody like Pete wil have to figure out why it works and then tell me. But I'm lovin' it.

[Guest guest]

,

Are you just dividing Standard Deviation by Mean to get this?

Pete

Van DeusenBrainTrainer ()16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157305/321-1595

Re: Squash protocol

Pete,

I started out using Standard deviation as the measure of Variability but was less than satisfied. I ended up using coefficient of variability.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

One more comment on 'squashing'. OK maybe two.

I almost always use the " windowed squash " leaving 12-21 alone. I

often will train SMR and Beta up during the squash if assessment or

client presentaion would indicat that. I have seen many instances

where the amplitudes between 12-20 hz increase while using only the

windowed squash, no need to train the increase directly.

I use the auto threhsolds for squash until it appears that the client

has reached a stable spot then switch to manual thrshold and let the

client " hang out' in that realm with out pushing for more amplitude

reduction,

------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------