Re: opposite effect

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane

Are you saying that you had to keep making the inhibit threshold higher to maintain the same level of reward and that the 2-8 band continued to increase in threshold. How does the overall EEG amplitude compare across sessions.?

Mark

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Diane,

we see this effect often in advanced training situations. The trainee has already made some major steps - we and parents of kids can watch his/her behaviour changes. Then these opposite effects appear. We suppose that the trainee goes through inner abreactions which drive theta or alpha amplitudes high. From different therapies (like primal therapy where large theta/alpha amplitudes happen in critical periods) we know that these are very fruitful effects. It's a little bit like (positive) chaos intervention as I pointed out in earlier mails.

Uwe

[Guest guest]

I simply use the auto threshold, but yes, the threshold gradually increased throughout the session. I have not compared the EEG across sessions, but I know that the amplitude of the 2-8 band started higher than ever, and increased from there. Mark Baddeley <baddeley@...> wrote: Hi Diane Are you saying that you had to keep making the inhibit threshold higher to maintain the same level of reward and that the 2-8 band continued to increase in threshold. How does the overall EEG amplitude compare across sessions.? Mark opposite effect Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location

on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom? The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down. Diane Curriden FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Diane,

With the auto threshold, there is no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction, because that does not affect the feedback.

I would use the auto threshold only in the beginning, to find where to set the threshold initially, and then switch to manual. Pete's designs with auto threshold are designed to do that, you aren't meant to continue with the auto.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Diane CurridenSent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: Re: opposite effect

I simply use the auto threshold, but yes, the threshold gradually increased throughout the session. I have not compared the EEG across sessions, but I know that the amplitude of the 2-8 band started higher than ever, and increased from there. Mark Baddeley <baddeley@...> wrote:

Hi Diane

Are you saying that you had to keep making the inhibit threshold higher to maintain the same level of reward and that the 2-8 band continued to increase in threshold. How does the overall EEG amplitude compare across sessions.?

Mark

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

I guess if she felt good through out the session. There's nothing to worry about although it would be nice to understand what was happening. Within the 2-8 Hz bandwidth was there a strong peak tendency thoughout and if so what frequency?

Mark

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Auto can do some weird things sometimes, like grow or shrink out of the on-screen range.

As a home trainer I've found the auto threshold very useful. I used to leave my mouse over the manual button and click it every once in a while to lower the threshold. That gets distracting and sometimes annoying.

Now when I start a new protocol I still baby-sit need to the threshold for a while. But soon it continues in the desired direction by habit. Then I just peek at the screen to confirm I'm ok.

--

Do Something Useful

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Many times, the signal has a lot variance, so the threshold doesn't really settle down. It bounces all around. How do you then choose where the threshold should be? And, what would be the allowable percent success range? In other words, if the reward signal started moving the wrong direction, how low would you let it go before resetting the threshold? Conversely, if the brain caught on to what was expected, and did really well, how high would you let the percent success go before adding more of a challenge? I'm sure there is no hard and fast rule, but any words of wisdom on this subject would be appreciated. Thanks.Diane A <PetePixxx@...> wrote: Auto can do some weird things

sometimes, like grow or shrink out of the on-screen range. As a home trainer I've found the auto threshold very useful. I used to leave my mouse over the manual button and click it every once in a while to lower the threshold. That gets distracting and sometimes annoying. Now when I start a new protocol I still baby-sit need to the threshold for a while. But soon it continues in the desired direction by habit. Then I just peek at the screen to confirm I'm ok. -- Do Something Useful opposite effect Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they

say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom? The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down. Diane Curriden FareChase - Search multiple travel

sites in one click. FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Is this somewhere where using a combination (OR) of both an auto and

manual threshold would work. I set my manual to my ultimate target and

auto to encourage me to get there (get some positive feedback that I'm

heading in the right direction). Works well for me when EC.

Diane Curriden wrote:

Many times, the signal has a lot variance, so the threshold

doesn't really settle down. It bounces all around. How do you then

choose where the threshold should be?

And, what would be the allowable percent success range? In

other words, if the reward signal started moving the wrong direction,

how low would you let it go before resetting the threshold?

Conversely, if the brain caught on to what was expected, and did really

well, how high would you let the percent success go before adding more

of a challenge?

I'm sure there is no hard and fast rule, but any words of wisdom

on this subject would be appreciated. Thanks.

Diane

A <PetePixxx@...> wrote:

Auto can do some weird thi!

ngs sometimes, like grow or shrink out of the on-screen range.

As a home trainer I've found the

auto threshold very useful. I used to leave my mouse over the manual

button and click it every once in a while to lower the threshold. That

gets distracting and sometimes annoying.

Now when I start a new protocol I

still baby-sit need to the threshold for a while. But soon it

continues in the desired direction by habit. Then I just peek at the

screen to confirm I'm ok.

--

Do Something Useful

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Foxx

To:

Sent:

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:22 PM

Subject:

RE: opposite effect

Diane,

With the auto threshold, there is no incentive for the

person's brain to move in the desired direction, because that does not

affect the feedback.

I would use the auto threshold only in the beginning, to find

where to set the threshold initially, and then switch to manual. Pete's

designs with auto threshold are designed to do that, you aren't meant

to continue with the auto.

Foxx

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the

effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to

down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in

with the client to see how they are feeling. !

If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not,

I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the

head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol

I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was

approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any

meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of

2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She

said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still

worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multip!

le travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Diane~

I have noticed that a brain that has a lot of variance does best if the thresholds are on Manual but set at about 85-95% adjusting the threshold bar with the pointer at times to keep the rewards coming. Very often if the levels start moving in the wrong direction moving the bar so you are getting 95-99% rewards seems to turn them around, makes them drop within seconds. Sounds counter intuitive but ........Others may have different experiences. I only use Auto for rewards not inhibits and I always use a trend to keep track of the levels.

~

--------- opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear Foxx: I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves "no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback". I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing. Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing something? nick

mammano karenduncan@... wrote: Diane~ I have noticed that a brain that has a lot of variance does best if the thresholds are on Manual but set at about 85-95% adjusting the threshold bar with the pointer at times to keep the rewards coming. Very often if the levels start moving in the wrong direction moving the bar so you are getting 95-99% rewards seems to turn them around, makes them drop within seconds. Sounds counter intuitive but ........Others may have different experiences. I only use Auto for rewards not inhibits and I always use a trend to keep track of the levels. ~ --------- opposite effect Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they

say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom? The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down. Diane Curriden FareChase - Search multiple travel

sites in one click. FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Nick,

my 2 cents...

on auto threshold if a client gets more tired, bored, distracted, etc and is unable, unwilling to focus the reinforcement will become easier and they work less hard but get the same amount of bells, score, brightness, etc

with a fixed threshold - the client has to maintain their focus and may work harder to keep the reinforcement at the same level, ie bells, brightness, volume, etc.

i hope this make sense

Mark Berman

opposite effect

Sometimes when I train, I notice the opposite of the effect I am hoping for. That is, a frequency band I am attempting to down train, steadily increases! So far, when this happens I check in with the client to see how they are feeling. If they say they are fine, and are acting fine, I keep going. If not, I change something---either a frequency band or a location on the head. Today, for example, I worked on a woman with the same protocol I've used 10 times before on her, with great results. It was approximately the same time of day as usual, she had not changed any meds, and had gotten a good night's sleep, yet, her low inhibit band of 2-8 hz steadily increased from the time we started, till the end. She said she felt good throughout the session, and at the end, but I still worry about what happened. Any words of wisdom?

The protocol was C3/C4/A2 SMR up, 2-8 and 23-38 down.

Diane Curriden

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Nick,

I agree with Mark.

The brain patterns we are looking to change are old and entrenched, the brain will have a tendency to revert to them.

The key phrase in your message is "as the brain learns through training the % achievement will tend to increase." What is "encouraging the brain to learn" with auto thresholds? Very little. Only in the brief period before the threshold resets itself is the brain being told what direction you want it to go. There is a very good chance that the brain "learns" that if it hangs out for a brief time, it is going to get feedback no matter what it does.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:08 PM Subject: Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx:

I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves

"no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback".

I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing.

Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing something?

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

Huh??

RE: opposite effect

Nick,

I agree with Mark.

The brain patterns we are looking to change are old and entrenched, the brain will have a tendency to revert to them.

The key phrase in your message is "as the brain learns through training the % achievement will tend to increase." What is "encouraging the brain to learn" with auto thresholds? Very little. Only in the brief period before the threshold resets itself is the brain being told what direction you want it to go. There is a very good chance that the brain "learns" that if it hangs out for a brief time, it is going to get feedback no matter what it does.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:08 PM Subject: Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx:

I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves

"no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback".

I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing.

Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing something?

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

So if I'm a high jumper and the bar keeps rising (only !) if I get over it then I'll soon learn that ... What?

Should be -- keep jumping higher and get keep getting rewarded! Not just meaningless ethers, but "feedback", either positive or negative. I fail to see what is occurring in this "no matter what" situation you mention.

I'm sorry, I'm having a very difficult time following your logic in any real world example I can think of.

--

Do Something Useful

RE: opposite effect

Nick,

I agree with Mark.

The brain patterns we are looking to change are old and entrenched, the brain will have a tendency to revert to them.

The key phrase in your message is "as the brain learns through training the % achievement will tend to increase." What is "encouraging the brain to learn" with auto thresholds? Very little. Only in the brief period before the threshold resets itself is the brain being told what direction you want it to go. There is a very good chance that the brain "learns" that if it hangs out for a brief time, it is going to get feedback no matter what it does.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:08 PM Subject: Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx:

I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves

"no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback".

I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing.

Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing something?

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

Dear Foxx and Mark: I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process". Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again. Repeat above as necessary. Isn't this an example of manual adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold". How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other? I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment: The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2

feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow. nick

mammano A <PetePixxx@...> wrote: So if I'm a high jumper and the bar keeps rising (only !) if I get over it then I'll soon learn that ... What? Should be -- keep jumping higher and get keep getting rewarded! Not just meaningless ethers, but "feedback", either positive or negative. I fail to see what is occurring in this "no matter what" situation you mention. I'm sorry, I'm having a very difficult time following your logic in any real world example I can think of. -- Do Something Useful RE: opposite effect Nick, I agree with Mark. The brain patterns we are looking to change are old and entrenched, the brain will have a tendency to revert to them. The key phrase in your message is "as the brain learns through training the % achievement will tend to increase." What is "encouraging the brain to learn" with auto thresholds? Very little. Only in the brief period before the threshold resets itself is the brain being told what direction you want it to go. There is a very good chance that the brain "learns" that if it hangs out for

a brief time, it is going to get feedback no matter what it does. Foxx -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:08 PMTo:

Subject: Re: opposite effect Dear Foxx: I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves "no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback". I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing. Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing

something? nick mammano

[Guest guest]

Nick and ~

I think what Foxx is saying, if the brain wants to be lazy and just hang it's still going to get the same rewards as if the brain really tries hard. 80% reward at ALL times if you have it set on AUTO. Its still going to get rewarded 80% (or what every % you choose) if the trainer spaces out the window, goes to sleep or really tries, as it will automatically adjust to where ever the brain is at that time and not working for change. It says Yes YES YES at all times rather than,.... yes, now try harder, even harder, push that down, pay better attention, good, that's better, keep going, that's good, oops you are loosing focus, you lost the control , lets get it back, try for more rewards, keep it down, OK, very good, you are doing really well, terrific! if you have it set on MANUAL.

AUTO does not allow the brain to hear the 60%rewards if its not doing as well or the 90% rewards that it should hear if the brain is doing really well. The brain will naturally want to hear more rewards than less so one hopes it will work to be rewarded more.

Hope this makes sense, :~)

~

Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx and Mark:

I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process".

Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again.

Repeat above as necessary.

Isn't this an example of manual adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold".

How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other?

I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment:

The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2 feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow.

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

I've always used the autothresholds, but in the last couple of days have started using the manual. The manual is much more of a challenge! I'm convinced to switch over. I'm wondering, however, if for new clients, sticking with the autothresholds for the first time or two would be a good idea. Just so they get used to it? Diane Duncan <karenduncan@...> wrote: Nick and ~ I think what Foxx is saying, if the brain wants to be lazy and just hang it's still going to get the same rewards as if the brain really tries hard. 80% reward at ALL times if you have it set on AUTO. Its still going to get rewarded 80% (or what

every % you choose) if the trainer spaces out the window, goes to sleep or really tries, as it will automatically adjust to where ever the brain is at that time and not working for change. It says Yes YES YES at all times rather than,.... yes, now try harder, even harder, push that down, pay better attention, good, that's better, keep going, that's good, oops you are loosing focus, you lost the control , lets get it back, try for more rewards, keep it down, OK, very good, you are doing really well, terrific! if you have it set on MANUAL. AUTO does not allow the brain to hear the 60%rewards if its not doing as well or the 90% rewards that it should hear if the brain is doing really well. The brain will naturally want to hear more rewards than less so one hopes it will work to be rewarded more. Hope

this makes sense, :~) ~ Re: opposite effect Dear Foxx and Mark: I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not

sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process". Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again. Repeat above as necessary. Isn't this an example of manual

adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold". How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other? I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment: The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2 feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't

bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow. nick mammano

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

I think I'm starting to get this concept. I hope I don't seem too dense. Or too confrontational when I don't write out complete a bunch of smiley faces. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) How's that?

One difference I see is that with MANUAL the person is training to a "standard" that the trainer has set. With the high jumper analogy this could be "jump at least five feet and you get positive feedback, less than five feel you will get NO feedback at all". This makes some sense to me now is that context, especially with a trainer watching the screen.

I've been looking at giving feedback for "going the correct direction", from wherever the user happens to be at the moment. Even if they overall went in the wrong (undesired or unexpected) direction during the session. i.e. this is what it takes to jump 5 ft, 4 ft, 3 ft, oops shouldn't I be at 5 ft?, 3.5 ft, 4 ft, etc... This isn't valuable?

This brings up a few training strategy ideas. The one that comes to mind immediately is: Even if you are going in the wrong direction, you are still learning how to "influence" the state being monitored if you get feedback. You are learning how to NOT get your desired results. Perhaps the person needs to "reverse" what they are doing (what is that exactly again????) that changes the brain state. Perhaps they just need to take a few more swings till they connect with the correct process (ok, I've changed from high jump to baseball. Sue me :-)) ).

Anyway, thank you for this discussion. It opened up my perspective.

--

Do Something Useful

Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx and Mark:

I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process".

Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again.

Repeat above as necessary.

Isn't this an example of manual adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold".

How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other?

I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment:

The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2 feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow.

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

One comment about auto vs. manual, and it all depends on the client. Disclaimer (I'm a dyed in the wool humanist, back in the 60's we were called pinko liberals). If a child (or adult I suppose) has really poor self-esteem, many times they are afraid of their outcomes with NFB in the first place. Many times when I tell a young person I need to move you to the "next" level..... (being total fantasy anyway), they sometimes panic. All sorts of defenses come popping up. Sorry to burst any "coaching bubbles" but the old ..."give me one more, or what are you anway a weenie?" doesn't work with really traumatized people. ly they don't give a damn, Scarlet. If the trainer is extremely attentive, and after the 7th client of the day I can't say I always am, then using manual to evoke response is terrific, however, I have to admit, I'm human, and have my on days and my off days. (By the way, using manual to push is ...I think... referred to as "shaping"), however, if you have someone who is already beating themself up for failure, baby steps to me are more rewarding than hopelessness.

[Guest guest]

This all sounds like a nice theoretical discussion, but I reckon the bottom line is "what actually works?". I've used both auto and manual thresholds for many years and guess what ... they both work!

Manual thresholds can work very well for those who need improvement in concentration, where the challenge is to produce a concentrated effort to, for example, bring down excessive slow wave amplitudes.

But for those who already obsessive/compulsive or prone to anxiety, the last thing they need is to be worrying about whether they are doing the right thing. The moment the anxious person hears the feedback slow down or stop they can get panicky and hit the "I must be doing something wrong!" button. Muscles tense up, beta amplitudes surge and scoring dries up altogether, which makes them even more anxious. I couldn't tell you the number of times I've "rescued" an anxious person at that moment by opening the thresholds right up or switching to auto threshold. They then get feedback again, the anxiety subsides, and they are more relaxed.

I think for people like that it is more important for them to be lost in the moment rather than having to concentrate on meeting goals. Any feedback is good feedback. Remember Sterman's cats didn't have to concentrate hard to get their milk or chicken soup ... they simply received it every time they produced an increase in SMR. It was completely a subconscious process.

Many of my best successes have been with clients who had auto thresholds at every session. The guys in my schools programs all use it exclusively and we still get great reductions in autistic behaviour, elimination of seizures, etc, etc. Whatever works is good enough for me.

Mark Darling

Sunshine Coast, Australia

[Guest guest]

I often use the auto at the beginining of the session and the change to manual until the success rate gets very high 80%+ and then change to auto to get a new "set" point and then back to manual. It is a method I use to "shape" the brain wave activiation patterns.

LThis email and any attachments may contain confidential information and it is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction or transmission of this email is strictly prohibited.

--------- Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx and Mark:

I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process".

Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again.

Repeat above as necessary.

Isn't this an example of manual adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold".

How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other?

I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment:

The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2 feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow.

nick mammano

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

and Nick,

This discussion started because Diane was using an auto threshold and the client's brain was going in the wrong direction. This is always a danger because of the way autos function. It has been my experience also. Pete also does not generally find auto thresholds effective. Ditto Mark.

The proof is in the pudding. Are you using auto thresholds and are they working for you? Then don't change to manual. If things stop working, try switching to manual.

Also try to understand the logic of feedback. , the problems with this

"So if I'm a high jumper and the bar keeps rising (only !) if I get over it then I'll soon learn that ... What?

Should be -- keep jumping higher and get keep getting rewarded!"

are 1) with autos you don't have to jump higher to keep getting rewarded. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what auto thresholds are.

2) It is usually not the raising of the threshold that is motivating, but the feedback. Unlike the high jumper, the brain does NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO JUMP HIGHER. The danger of autos is that you adjust the feedback to the brain, rather than the brain to the feedback. If you don't make it over the bar and the bar lowers, what are you learning? Your coach says, good, good. You think, let's not make it over this lower one, and the bar will go lower again, and coach will still say good, good, and I won't have to work so hard.

The logic seems clear to me.

It would be nice if someone would design software that would raise the threshold automatically after a person has achieved a specified success rate for a reasonable period of time. (Perhaps that is possible in BioExplorer, I haven't tried that.) That is not what the current autos do. They raise OR LOWER the threshold to maintain the specified success rate. There is no way to make the amount of feedback you are getting increase or decrease over the longer term.

You can design protocols where the feedback varies with the brain signal. The pitch or volume can go up as the signal moves increasingly in the desired direction. Or you can play a second note, making a chord, as the signal moves more in the desired direction. You can do this with a threshold (they don't hear anything unless they meet the threshold) or without (feedback varies as the signal varies).

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ASent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:31 PM Subject: Re: opposite effect

So if I'm a high jumper and the bar keeps rising (only !) if I get over it then I'll soon learn that ... What?

Should be -- keep jumping higher and get keep getting rewarded! Not just meaningless ethers, but "feedback", either positive or negative. I fail to see what is occurring in this "no matter what" situation you mention.

I'm sorry, I'm having a very difficult time following your logic in any real world example I can think of.

--

Do Something Useful

RE: opposite effect

Nick,

I agree with Mark.

The brain patterns we are looking to change are old and entrenched, the brain will have a tendency to revert to them.

The key phrase in your message is "as the brain learns through training the % achievement will tend to increase." What is "encouraging the brain to learn" with auto thresholds? Very little. Only in the brief period before the threshold resets itself is the brain being told what direction you want it to go. There is a very good chance that the brain "learns" that if it hangs out for a brief time, it is going to get feedback no matter what it does.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:08 PM Subject: Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx:

I don't understand what you mean when you state that the auto threshold leaves

"no incentive for the person's brain to move in the desired direction because that does not affect the feedback".

I thought the auto threshold worked by automatically adjusting the threshold (uv) so that the brain achieves a desired % achievement (in a set time period). As the brain "learns" through training, the % achievement will tend to increase. The threshold is then automatically adjusted by the program (up or down) to maintain the desired % achievement. Doesn't manual adjustment of the threshold do the same thing.

Why isn't this feedback? Or am I missing something?

nick mammano

[Guest guest]

,

If you use the auto to start with, you will see what the 75% threshold (for example) is for that person, and then you can manually set the threshold there.With BioExplorer, you just click on Auto on the threshold bar and it toggles to Manual.

Foxx

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ASent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:03 AM Subject: Re: opposite effect

I think I'm starting to get this concept. I hope I don't seem too dense. Or too confrontational when I don't write out complete a bunch of smiley faces. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) How's that?

One difference I see is that with MANUAL the person is training to a "standard" that the trainer has set. With the high jumper analogy this could be "jump at least five feet and you get positive feedback, less than five feel you will get NO feedback at all". This makes some sense to me now is that context, especially with a trainer watching the screen.

I've been looking at giving feedback for "going the correct direction", from wherever the user happens to be at the moment. Even if they overall went in the wrong (undesired or unexpected) direction during the session. i.e. this is what it takes to jump 5 ft, 4 ft, 3 ft, oops shouldn't I be at 5 ft?, 3.5 ft, 4 ft, etc... This isn't valuable?

This brings up a few training strategy ideas. The one that comes to mind immediately is: Even if you are going in the wrong direction, you are still learning how to "influence" the state being monitored if you get feedback. You are learning how to NOT get your desired results. Perhaps the person needs to "reverse" what they are doing (what is that exactly again????) that changes the brain state. Perhaps they just need to take a few more swings till they connect with the correct process (ok, I've changed from high jump to baseball. Sue me :-)) ).

Anyway, thank you for this discussion. It opened up my perspective.

--

Do Something Useful

Visit your group "" on the web.

[Guest guest]

Another thing that Pete does in some of his protocols is set a bell, like tubular bells or music box, to sound when the person is very much in the desired direction. It doesn't sound very often but it gives an indication of the desired direction. This can be done with an auto, e.g., 10%, or a manual threshold and can be combined with other thresholds of either type.

Foxx

[Guest guest]

I recall that Pete's advice was to use auto threshold until the auto began to hover around a value and then switch to manual threshold using the hover threshold as the manual setting. In my experience this only takes a couple of minutes but if the auto is used for too long the brain appears to me to get lazy and works out it can be rewarded for less effort and less therapeutic gain.

Mark

Re: opposite effect

Dear Foxx and Mark:

I simply do not agree with your analysis and I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe turning to the example of high-jumper isn't bad -- and yes, I do understand that high jumping isn't brain-training but l want to make a point about the "process".

Say a high jumper begins to train to jump at 6 feet with 75% success, eg. doing 6 feet 3 out of 4 tries, but is unsuccessful -- all he can consistently do is 50% success --1 out of 2 tries. So he lowers the bar to some height (say 5 feet) where he can consistently achieve 75% success. He then notes that after training at this lower challenge he begins improving and does even better -- say 85% -- at 5 feet. What next? Well, raise the bar to whatever level gives him 75% success consistently, say 5 1/2 feet. When he starts to do even better than 75% at 5 1/2 feet, raise it again.

Repeat above as necessary.

Isn't this an example of manual adjustment of the threshold by the jumper (or his coach/trainer). Now if we could imagine some machine that did this automatically (not too hard to imagine a "seeing eye" or camera/computer/machine that counted his successes and raised or lowered the bar in the right direction AUTOMATICALLY if the % success was more or less than 75%) we would call it "auto threshold".

How are the processes different, other than the fact that BE does the work automatically in one case, and the trainer manually in the other?

I CAN however make an argument in FAVOR of manual adjustment:

The jumper or his coach may in fact want to MAINTAIN it at 5 feet for a while until he achieves 100% success before raising the bar to 5 1/2 feet-- what's wrong with that? Practice makes perfect --as long as the trainee isn't bored by the success without a challenge. Maybe there is something to be said in brain training for raising the threshold ie. the amplitude in uv, a bit and staying there for a few minutes (or a few sessions?) before raising the threshold again. In other words instead of having a protocol of consistenly rising trend line, one with a series of plateaus where the new amplitudes are "locked in" by repetition at each plateau, also makes a lot of sense to me. In fact it makes more sense, as long as the trainee doesn't get bored by the constant successes, This is a more convincing argument against auto thresholding (because you cannot hold the threshold constant with auto thresholding) than the one you make, which as I said I just don't follow.

nick mammano

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.