RE: Re: Finding own SMR frequency

[Guest guest]

Steve,

Any montage measures background signal in the brain (which is a volume conductor), plus the signals of neurons between the two sites that happen to be (more or less) lined up with the line between the sites. The cortex, the hippocampus and the cingulate contain the kind of neurons known as pyramidal cells (they have a triangular look, like a pyramid). They have a cell body with dendrites (receivers) on one end and an axon tree running away in a single direction (again, more or less). One end has a negative charge, the other has a positive charge.

If the neuron is parallel to the line between the sensors, one sensor will see the negative end and the other will see the positive end, and there will be a significant difference between the readings at the two points. Neurons that are perpendicular (more or less) to the line of measurement will not be "seen", because each of the sensors will read the positive and negative ends of the neuron, so the signal will be about the same in both places and, when you subtract one from the other, the result will be close to zero. Neurons that are a lot closer to one sensor than the other will be more strongly read at that sensor.

The cortex, which would be the only "visible" EEG in the central strip, is folded and crumpled to cram more of it into a compressed space. Lucky for us. If it fit like shrink-wrap over the inner brain, all the neurons would be oriented up-and-down, and we'd see no EEG. Because of the crumpling and folding, though, columns of neurons end up facing in many different directions, and we get a reading of all that complicated mess of neurons facing one direction and the opposite direction and across the line of measure. Try sometime putting a set of leads halfway between C3/Cz and C4/Cz and another set halfway between Fz/Cz and Pz/Cz. The leads should be about the same distance apart, and they should be measuring essentially the same little strip of real estate around Cz. You are likely to get quite different measurements, though, because you are measuring completely different sets of neurons.

So when you place one lead at C3 and the other at C4 and measure the differential, with a challenge to increase the differential between the two sites at a particular frequency, you cannot be increasing the activity at that frequency all along the area being measured. At least not by any way I can imagine. If it increased all along the strip in a random fashion, then overall amplitude would go up at both sensors, but when they were subtracted from one another the answer would be the same. What is most likely to happen is that neurons firing in the SMR range at or near C4, where lobeta is more prominent in most brains, will get more active, so the C4-C3 (or C3-C4) number will rise. Of course, neurons seen more strongly at C3 could reduce their firing in the 12-15Hz range. Or both could happen. Or if the brain happened to have more lobeta at C3 than C4, the exact opposite could happen. Or all the neurons could produce less lobeta, but with a bigger drop at one sensor than the other. Or all the neurons could produce more lobeta, but with a bigger rise at one sensor.

In short, God alone knows what's happening inside that brain that results in the computer going "beep". Because Barry Sterman used the C3/C4 protocol in the 1970's and published some successful work related to seizure disorders, there are those who believe it should be the only protocol used today 30 years later. Sterman himself does not limit himself to that protocol.

Training in the central strip (C3, Cz or C4) is very popular. Mike Tansey, Lubar, the Othmers, Sterman, Val Brown and many others focus very strongly on this area and with good reason. It tends to be a very safe place to train, and it is heavily connected to the thalamus, which connects to almost everywhere else in the brain as well. But I would agree with all of the above that monopolar (referenced to the ears or mastoid) protocols make a lot more sense in the central strip, because they give you a much better idea of what you are actually training.

As for results, since no-one verifies anyone's claims of results, one can claim pretty much whatever he chooses. I've spoken with many of you on the list who have been attracted by the siren song of C3/C4 or other systems which seem to simplify your life: Wow! You don't have to figure out where to put the leads or what to train up or down. You just take out the old cookie cutter and go to work. Sometimes you might get results in 20 sessions; other times it might take 200; other times you might not get results no matter how long you train.

Pete

Re: Finding own SMR frequency

I realize this is a repeating question, but...With a bipolar (one channel) montage, c3/c4 (A1 ground), rewarding lobeta actually does what? I have had both Dr. Von and Hershel Toomin tell me that this increeases lobeta along the sensory motor strip, but I don't get how it can, and I don't understand how Dr. Von can continue to get the resutls claimed by doing what he does.

[Guest guest]

I always try to get a second opinion. This one came from Dr. Von:

A client send me your comment made this AM on brain trainer, to which

I do not subscribe. You might consider that if two of the oldest and

most experienced practitioners in the field tell you of their most stable

observation

then it is up to you to do 40 years of work to pile up enough data to prove

that they are wrong. Data! not opinion, or " I don't understand. "

Sterman named " sensori-motor rhythm " , 13-14 Hz, or 13-17 Hz; Tansey

compiled substantial evidence focused on 14Hz. Generally SMR is the

cluster

of signals centering on 14, as Siegfried said. I have always insisted that

12Hz be

excluded because as any spectral array will demonstrate, 8-12 is definitely

distinct from >12Hz (although the bands are slightly variable from subject

to subject).

The rationale for training 13-14 was that 13-14Hz typically has the

strongest amplitude

throughout the brain, but is relatively weak in epileptics (along the

Fissure of Roland); when Sterman attempted to give cats seizures (by

injecting hydrazine) he had a group of cats that did not seize when all the

others did seize. Since he had small funds he was using used cats - what

history? SMR training! I can't remember why.

So applied SMR training to jet pilots and others and lo! fewer and weaker

seizures.

D.A. Quirk heard him give a paper in 1970, foned me, and we began applying

SMR training to felons. We had already collaborated on training

hospitalized

psychotic females using temp/GSR. Temp/GSR AND SMR training did the job

for violent felons and many others.

Quirk and I used Jonas' book, " Ictal and subIctal Neurosis " as the basic

hypothesis framing our concept of how to help felons. Quirk used a

Canadian test similar to the Bender Gestalt, the DDT (but modified

somewhat), to select our first subjects. In his hands the test was

phenomenally accurate.

Not opinion. Simple hypothesis, hypothesis tested, hypothesis proved. No

competing hypothesis. QED

Not hard to understand. You might find some of the essays at

www.drbiofeedback.com valuable.

Cordially,

von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.

Origonal message:

Steve,

Any montage measures background signal in the brain (which is a volume

conductor), plus the signals of neurons between the two sites that happen

to be (more or less) lined up with the line between the sites. The cortex,

the hippocampus and the cingulate contain the kind of neurons known as

pyramidal cells (they have a triangular look, like a pyramid). They have a

cell body with dendrites (receivers) on one end and an axon tree running

away in a single direction (again, more or less). One end has a negative

charge, the other has a positive charge.

If the neuron is parallel to the line between the sensors, one sensor will

see the negative end and the other will see the positive end, and there

will be a significant difference between the readings at the two points.

Neurons that are perpendicular (more or less) to the line of measurement

will not be " seen " , because each of the sensors will read the positive and

negative ends of the neuron, so the signal will be about the same in both

places and, when you subtract one from the other, the result will be close

to zero. Neurons that are a lot closer to one sensor than the other will

be more strongly read at that sensor.

The cortex, which would be the only " visible " EEG in the central strip, is

folded and crumpled to cram more of it into a compressed space. Lucky for

us. If it fit like shrink-wrap over the inner brain, all the neurons would

be oriented up-and-down, and we'd see no EEG. Because of the crumpling and

folding, though, columns of neurons end up facing in many different

directions, and we get a reading of all that complicated mess of neurons

facing one direction and the opposite direction and across the line of

measure. Try sometime putting a set of leads halfway between C3/Cz and

C4/Cz and another set halfway between Fz/Cz and Pz/Cz. The leads should be

about the same distance apart, and they should be measuring essentially the

same little strip of real estate around Cz. You are likely to get quite

different measurements, though, because you are measuring completely

different sets of neurons.

So when you place one lead at C3 and the other at C4 and measure the

differential, with a challenge to increase the differential between the two

sites at a particular frequency, you cannot be increasing the activity at

that frequency all along the area being measured. At least not by any way

I can imagine. If it increased all along the strip in a random fashion,

then overall amplitude would go up at both sensors, but when they were

subtracted from one another the answer would be the same. What is most

likely to happen is that neurons firing in the SMR range at or near C4,

where lobeta is more prominent in most brains, will get more active, so the

C4-C3 (or C3-C4) number will rise. Of course, neurons seen more strongly

at C3 could reduce their firing in the 12-15Hz range. Or both could

happen. Or if the brain happened to have more lobeta at C3 than C4, the

exact opposite could happen. Or all the neurons could produce less lobeta,

but with a bigger drop at one sensor than the other. Or all the neurons

could produce more lobeta, but with a bigger rise at one sensor.

In short, God alone knows what's happening inside that brain that results

in the computer going " beep " . Because Barry Sterman used the C3/C4

protocol in the 1970's and published some successful work related to

seizure disorders, there are those who believe it should be the only

protocol used today 30 years later. Sterman himself does not limit himself

to that protocol.

Training in the central strip (C3, Cz or C4) is very popular. Mike Tansey,

Lubar, the Othmers, Sterman, Val Brown and many others focus very

strongly on this area and with good reason. It tends to be a very safe

place to train, and it is heavily connected to the thalamus, which connects

to almost everywhere else in the brain as well. But I would agree with all

of the above that monopolar (referenced to the ears or mastoid) protocols

make a lot more sense in the central strip, because they give you a much

better idea of what you are actually training.

As for results, since no-one verifies anyone's claims of results, one can

claim pretty much whatever he chooses. I've spoken with many of you on the

list who have been attracted by the siren song of C3/C4 or other systems

which seem to simplify your life: Wow! You don't have to figure out where

to put the leads or what to train up or down. You just take out the old

cookie cutter and go to work. Sometimes you might get results in 20

sessions; other times it might take 200; other times you might not get

results no matter how long you train.

Pete

[Guest guest]

Steve,

One thing I do is to look at the activation patterns n the assessment. If the theta/beta ratio drops more strongly and/or to lower levels on the right side than the left, and it does so pretty much all the way back, then I'd consider the possibility of right dominance for language. You could especially look for activation differences between F7 and F8 when doing a language task (e.g. reading aloud).

Often you will really know when you get reversed effects from standard training protocols and expected results when you reverse the protocols.

Pete

Re: Finding own SMR frequency

Thanks Pete. Can you tell me the best way to determine which hemisphere is dominant in a left hander?SDC

[Guest guest]

This is based on Barry Sterman's and later work by Linden and

others. Barry really " discovered " SMR. Read up on the progression of his

research from cats who seized to epilepsy to ADD/ADHD.

Lisette Markham

>From: " P. Dal Cerro, Ph.D. " <gauge2_99@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Finding own SMR frequency

>Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:38:12 -0000

>

>I realize this is a repeating question, but...

>

>With a bipolar (one channel) montage, c3/c4 (A1 ground), rewarding

>lobeta actually does what? I have had both Dr. Von and Hershel

>Toomin tell me that this increeases lobeta along the sensory motor

>strip, but I don't get how it can, and I don't understand how Dr. Von

>can continue to get the resutls claimed by doing what he does.

>

>

>

>

> > Nino,

> >

> > Remember that SMR does not exist in most neurology texts. It is

>simply called Beta 1 or Low Beta. Even in neurofeedback, it only

>exists in the central strip, between C3 and C4. It is a frequency

>that relates to the thalamic filtering system functioning

>effectively, controlling inputs and outputs from the brain. ALL

>frequencies are variable by person. The definitions of frequencies

>were not brought down by Moses on stone tablets--they were defined by

>men (and there are many different definitions of them).

> >

> > The best way to find the SMR band is, as you suggest, empirical:

>start at 12-15 Hz (I like to use 13-15 or 12-16, so we keep 14 Hz in

>the center of the filter) and adjust it downward a little at a time

>if you don't get the desired response. For those younger than 16

>years, it will almost certainly be a lower frequency. You can look

>for the alpha band by looking at the power spectrum (brain mirror

>display) at P4 with eyes closed and eyes open. In most people a

>particular band will surge out and become dominant with eyes closed

>and then drop down sharply when eyes are opened. When you know where

>alpha is, then SMR is likely to be just above that.

> >

> > The key, though, is to see the client's body relax, muscle tone

>dropping significantly, and often becoming sleepy. SMR is also

>called " sleep spindles " at night, and it is correlated with the move

>from stage 1 to stage 2 sleep. When you find the right frequency,

>the change is often quite dramatic.

> >

> > Pete

> > Finding own SMR frequency

> >

> >

> > I've seen sometimes mentioned that the SMR frequency band ins't

>just the same for everybody but needs to be identified for every

>specific subject. What is the exact way to do so? There is a standard

>method or it is just empirical? Looking at the power spectrum density

>of the EEG (over a long period) I am able to see distinct peaks for

>Theta (at 6.2 Hz) and Alpha (at 10.6 Hz) and Beta (at 20 Hz) but

>there is no sign of an SMR peak (all this measured at C4 site).

> >

> > Any suggestion?

> >

> > -Nino

>

>

>

>

>

>