Re: opposite effect

[Guest guest]

Dear listmates, nice and very helpful discussion about tresholds!!!. I would like to add that if you want to better understand ( & BTW, you must, because the key point of the training is here) how the tresholds works, you need to practice with the "Bar Graphs" alone, by itself. The results of doing that? you will see how that specific brain is activating in that precise moment, so once you know where the amplitude is and where you want to go with, you can set the treshold wherever is need it. Remember that the brainwaves exist without any tresholds, "we" are creating and placing those tresholds to train that particular brain. Based on this idea is the reason why Pete is very accurate when he recommends to place the treshold first in Auto mode, to see how and where the amplitude is that moment, and after that, and only after that, we can set the Manual treshold to inhibit and/or reward

the challanging goal of the training. You also should combine modes when you need it,e.g. if you're training a very complex design as C3/A1/g/C4/A2 inhibiting Theta and HiBeta in both sides and rewarding Beta @ Ce and SMR @ C4, you should set Auto mode for the rewards, and Manual to Theta and maybe also for HiBeta, depends what your goals are. I also mix the treshold's mode when I'm using 2 inhibits one reward, getting nice results, but definitely I trully believe that if you always set the treshold to Auto, that same treshold is just following the brain activity and is making no significant changes. BTW, Mark, Dr. Sterman use fixed tresholds with auto set tresholds that works very different compare to BioExplorer's Auto mode. The first works when you hit a specific key on the keyboard, the tresholds will move to the amplitude's average of that particular brain activity and will mantain

the fixed mode after that Auto set. The Auto mode in BE will follow contstantly the movements of the amplitude no matter what. Please, correct me if I'm wrong... Hope this can add little bit more sense to the discussion regards, JR Mark Baddeley <baddeley@...> wrote: 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.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Friends: I mistakenly applied to another discussion stream (not the subject "opposite effect"). Paraphrasing what I wrote: "I found this discussion very interesting and very instructive and I understand now Foxx's point about "lazy brains and autothresholds --- Use Auto Threshold at the start, and it's wise to keep track of trend lines to be sure amplitudes are moving in the right direction. If not not go to Manual control, using Auto to set the initial amplitude" nick mammano" R. " <jrdiaz@...> wrote: Dear listmates, nice and very helpful discussion about tresholds!!!. I would like to add that if you want to better understand ( & BTW, you must,

because the key point of the training is here) how the tresholds works, you need to practice with the "Bar Graphs" alone, by itself. The results of doing that? you will see how that specific brain is activating in that precise moment, so once you know where the amplitude is and where you want to go with, you can set the treshold wherever is need it. Remember that the brainwaves exist without any tresholds, "we" are creating and placing those tresholds to train that particular brain. Based on this idea is the reason why Pete is very accurate when he recommends to place the treshold first in Auto mode, to see how and where the amplitude is that moment, and after that, and only after that, we can set the Manual treshold to inhibit and/or reward the challanging goal of the training. You also should combine modes when you need it,e.g. if you're training a very complex design as C3/A1/g/C4/A2

inhibiting Theta and HiBeta in both sides and rewarding Beta @ Ce and SMR @ C4, you should set Auto mode for the rewards, and Manual to Theta and maybe also for HiBeta, depends what your goals are. I also mix the treshold's mode when I'm using 2 inhibits one reward, getting nice results, but definitely I trully believe that if you always set the treshold to Auto, that same treshold is just following the brain activity and is making no significant changes. BTW, Mark, Dr. Sterman use fixed tresholds with auto set tresholds that works very different compare to BioExplorer's Auto mode. The first works when you hit a specific key on the keyboard, the tresholds will move to the amplitude's average of that particular brain activity and will mantain the fixed mode after that Auto set. The Auto mode in BE will follow contstantly the movements of the amplitude no matter what. Please, correct me if I'm

wrong... Hope this can add little bit more sense to the discussion regards, JR Mark Baddeley <baddeley@...> wrote: 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. FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

I believe I recall Sterman instructing us to never use auto- that we are to train the brain, and that Auto has the brain training US! We should also be aware of PRS (post response synchronization) which is directly related to speed of learning and degree of reward value to the client. It is necessary to have a pause after reward to allow time for this critical marker of the brain's response to reinforcement. Hence, discrete reward signals are preferable over continuous, if you want to maximize learning efficiency.

Sheila

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.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

I think no amount of programmer logic will ever replace the therapist watching what is happening during the training session. I reset the threshold several times during a session to keep the % of response close to the desired feedback. No automatic setting will ever be able to do that. Every brain is different.

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of FoxxSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:35 PM Subject: RE: opposite effect

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 have also found that starting with auto-thresholding and then monitoring each individual client is very important. Some are able to raise or lower the thresholds in the right direction the entire time the autothresholding is on and it doesn't seem necessary to move to manual. For others, however, I only use manual because of the "lazy" brain issue discussed below.

I've also found that autothresholding seems to be a problem with younger children I've trained that move around alot, scrunch up their faces, etc. Of course I tell them to be as still as possible and use multiple strategies to achieve this end, yet it still doesn't always work with young, hyper and/or oppositional children. The autothresholding calculates this movement into the setting and the bar (s) get set so easy that the beeps are continual and the brain doesn't seem to be learning much (based on the thresholds and the outcome). In these cases, I have to set it to manual (after the initial session) and manually raise or lower the thresholds during the training and this seems to be very effective.

Very informative discussion. Thanks!

B. Tate

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of NICK MAMMANOSent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:09 AM Subject: Re: opposite effect

Friends: I mistakenly applied to another discussion stream (not the subject "opposite effect"). Paraphrasing what I wrote:

"I found this discussion very interesting and very instructive and I understand now Foxx's point about "lazy brains and autothresholds ---

Use Auto Threshold at the start, and it's wise to keep track of trend lines to be sure amplitudes are moving in the right direction. If not not go to Manual control, using Auto to set the initial amplitude"

nick mammano" R. " <jrdiaz@...> wrote:

Dear listmates,

nice and very helpful discussion about tresholds!!!. I would like to add that if you want to better understand ( & BTW, you must, because the key point of the training is here) how the tresholds works, you need to practice with the "Bar Graphs" alone, by itself. The results of doing that? you will see how that specific brain is activating in that precise moment, so once you know where the amplitude is and where you want to go with, you can set the treshold wherever is need it.

Remember that the brainwaves exist without any tresholds, "we" are creating and placing those tresholds to train that particular brain.

Based on this idea is the reason why Pete is very accurate when he recommends to place the treshold first in Auto mode, to see how and where the amplitude is that moment, and after that, and only after that, we can set the Manual treshold to inhibit and/or reward the challanging goal of the training.

You also should combine modes when you need it,e.g. if you're training a very complex design as C3/A1/g/C4/A2 inhibiting Theta and HiBeta in both sides and rewarding Beta @ Ce and SMR @ C4, you should set Auto mode for the rewards, and Manual to Theta and maybe also for HiBeta, depends what your goals are.

I also mix the treshold's mode when I'm using 2 inhibits one reward, getting nice results, but definitely I trully believe that if you always set the treshold to Auto, that same treshold is just following the brain activity and is making no significant changes.

BTW, Mark, Dr. Sterman use fixed tresholds with auto set tresholds that works very different compare to BioExplorer's Auto mode. The first works when you hit a specific key on the keyboard, the tresholds will move to the amplitude's average of that particular brain activity and will mantain the fixed mode after that Auto set. The Auto mode in BE will follow contstantly the movements of the amplitude no matter what.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong...

Hope this can add little bit more sense to the discussion

regards,

JR

Mark Baddeley <baddeley@...> wrote:

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.

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Guest guest]

Also it seems that once the threshold is raised a lower percent success should be tolerated for a time to give the brain a chance to "get the hang of it" before lowering it again because 80% or whatever is not being met.

Rah

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.