Guest guest Posted April 8, 2004 Report Share Posted April 8, 2004 Spencer, Your experience of finding the TLC to provide a lot of the key information a Q would provide in a way that is faster, less expensive and more focused is one I hear often. Makes me happy. Entering normatiave data into the TLC Assess file is missing the point again. The TLC is not designed to tell you where someone's brain "deviates" from the "normal" brain. It is designed to work with the subjective evaluation to point you toward systems where some training might help a client achieve training goals. I see lots of folks with "abnormal" theta/beta ratios who have no problem concentrating, learning, etc. Using the "pathology" approach, I guess I should train that ratio to "normalize" them--whether they want it or not, by God! I don't believe that. I think brain training is a developmental technology, so I try to develop tools and protocols to allow people to develop their brains in the areas where they wish to. If you've got the 19-channel device already, spring for the database as well, and then you can do even more comparison of how much you learn without a database in less than an hour on a $1,000-$1,500 machine that you can also use to train your clients. Pete Van DeusenBrainTrainer ()16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157305/321-1595 Re: artifacting Pete,Thank you for your very concidered reply to my question. I just started to get into artifacting and data bases because of research and the question I previously raised with you. I am finding artifacting to bring up as many questions about the data I compare to the database, as I did when comparing the raw data going into ratios. I believe I over edit on the artifacting and loose a lot of slow wave activity. I do have a new 19 channell device and have found the TLC to yield very valueable comparisons quickly. As I don't own my own data base is there any way to enter the 19 channell data into the TLC.Just a note. I find the subjective evaluation spreadsheet invalueable and to very much narrow down the questions in comparing the brain wave data to the symptoms. Thanks -Spencer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Saint, Yeah, that would work unless you have someone who produces a great deal of artifact almost continuously, in which case you might look for the numbers way out of whack on the low side and keep those in. I like to look at the actual oscilloscope and power spectrum screens, at least for the frontals, and identify how much variability there is in the actual signal vs. the amount of artifact. Pete > > From: " St. Lee " <stgeorgelee@...> > Date: 2006/05/25 Thu AM 11:30:54 EDT > < > > Subject: RE: RE: Artifacting > > Pete, > > > > Thanks. So to use my vernacular, look for the numbers way out to whack, > whether none, 30 % of them or whatever. Sound good. > > > > Saint > > > > St. Lee > > stgeorgelee@... > > 757-595-0367 > > > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On > Behalf Of Van Deusen > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:37 AM > > Subject: Re: RE: Artifacting > > > > Saint, > > First of all, the artifacing is done manually exactly because I don't know > of any way to build an algorithm that will automatically remove all artifact > and only artifact. The red numbers are guides only. Since every file will > have the top 15% of its values marked red, a client who produces very little > artifact will need few if any lines removed; a client with a lot of artifact > will need more than the 15% removed. > > If you have a client where artifact was not much of an issue, then you may > see very little effect from the artifacting process. However, for clients > who blink a lot or have muscle bracing issues, it can make a huge > difference. > > Pete > > > > > From: " St Lee " <stgeorgelee@...> > > Date: 2006/05/25 Thu AM 10:20:27 EDT > > < > > > Subject: RE: Artifacting > > > > Pete, > > > > > > > > I just artifacted an assessment that I had previously done without > > artifacting. Final ratios and other data hardly changed at all. When I > > artifacted, I deleted most figures that were above the " 85% " level, and a > > few that were included in groups where many were over this level. I am > > wondering if it really is necessary to exclude any values unless they are > > grossly out of whack. Otherwise, it seems we are arbitrarily eliminating > the > > top 15 % or so of numbers in all montages and conditions. I may not have > > paid close enough attention in my recent training since I was not sure I > was > > going to get into artifacting. > > > > > > > > Also, I did always delete the first entry in each montage, always > > artificially low. Should we look for other possible lower numbers or is > > most artifacting going to lead to high numbers (e.g. from movement, loose > > connection, 60 cycle, muscle, etc.)? > > > > > > > > Saint > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: [mailto: ] > On > > Behalf Of Van Deusen > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:02 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Just starting out:Electrodes > > > > > > > > Nick, > > > > I use strictly the neurotrode electrodes (which often, unfortunately, come > > pre-gelled) with just a dab of paste and they work great on head sites > with > > hair. The pellet electrodes have a very small footprint and are perhaps > > harder to keep in place. > > > > I honestly can't say what the effect of using Ag/AgCl electrodes in a > pellet > > or neurotrode for some sites and standard Ag/AgCl electrodes at other > sites > > would be. I guess you could test it out and find out, but so far my > > preference has been to use the same system for all placements. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > From: NICK MAMMANO <nickmammano@...> > > > Date: 2006/05/24 Wed AM 09:04:04 EDT > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Just starting out:Electrodes > > > > > > Pete: I understand what you're saying. But does the no-no extend to > > mixing METAL (or metal/chloride electrodes) with GELLED electrodes? The > > latter don't work very well on the scalp (with hair that is), but they are > > convenient and seem to stick better on the ears, forehead etc. as grounds. > > > > > > > So the rule is that " ALL ELECTRODES IN A GIVEN SESSION MUST ALWAYS BE > > IDENTICAL. " Is that the case? > > > > > > Van Deusen <pvdtlc@...> wrote: > > > Yes, all electrodes in a montage should be made of the same metal, > > preferably roughly the same age and even the same type if possible. > Offset, > > which is a measure of the relationship between electrodes in a channel, is > > as important as impedance in its effect on signal quality. For the same > > reason that a discolored electrode, one which is flaking off its plating, > > should not be used (i.e. it becomes a bi-metallic electrode, thus creating > a > > small " battery " which affects the signal), using 2 electrodes that are > made > > of different metals has the same effect. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > From: " Strawderman " <straw856@...> > > > > Date: 2006/05/23 Tue AM 08:41:27 EDT > > > > < > > > > > Subject: Re: Just starting out:Electrodes > > > > > > > > On the subject of electrodes, someone mentioned to me recently that > all > > the electrodes being used at one time must be made of the same material > > (i.e. gold, silver, tin). So for example, if training with gold > electrodes, > > it is necessary to also be using gold plated ear clip electrodes. Is this > > true, and if so, why? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > ~Betsy > > > > > > Van Deusen > > > http://www.brain-trainer.com > > > > > > 16246 SW 92nd Ave, Miami, FL 33157 > > > 305/251-0337 or (cellular) 305/321-1595 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.