Re: Rationale behind InAll?

[Guest guest]

I haven't heard of the Inall protocol. Any elucidation appreciated.

Mark

Rationale behind InAll?

What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a mention of fp1 being the other site.Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1 as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.Tommi

[Guest guest]

>

> Emmanuel,

>

> I really appreciate the thoughtful nature of your questions, along

with the

> references (even though the links didn't work, I found the first

two).

>

> First, if Barry Sterman's recent presentations reflect the consensus

of

> neurophysiologists, it is clear that idling rhythms are not limited

to

> alpha. Synchronization can take place at a wide range of

frequencies in the

> cortical layers of the six layered cortex.

>

> These calculations from LORETA that impute current densities to

particular

> places in the brain have always been suspect to me. In reading one

of your

> references, I realized that one of the assumptions they rely on is

that the

> smoothest possible mathematical solution is the correct one. I

strongly

> doubt that this is generally true--there are too many

discontinuities

> between structures in the brain that don't connect with each other

but may

> be within millimeters.

>

> I recall that the anterior cingulate is actually an older type of

cortical

> architecture, having only five layers, and lacking the output

necessary to

> create thalamocorticothalamic loops. I don't think that theta in the

> cingulate cortex is an idling rhythm. In fact, I don't think we can

state

> that a given frequency band from 0 to 35 Hz. has the same function

(idling

> rhythm, message carrier, etc) in any of the subcortical structures

except

> those involved in the thalamocortical loops. Furthermore, all of

these

> frequencies may be part of a more complex wave pattern in which they

are

> overtones, undertones, or recovery phases that follow higher

frequency

> discharges. The higher frequencies that we can't measure and

estimate

> accurately with LORETA are probably more important in message

transmission

> in subcortical structures. So to ascribe some meaning to a current

density

> of " theta " found in anything but a cortical surface layer is

probably

> premature.

>

> To answer your questions:

> 1. We have not systematically evaluated the inhibition of alpha or

any

> other frequency, but they should also be a lower quality estimate of

the

> wideband suppression of all idling rhythms than the wideband itself.

> 2. I have tried some bipolar feedback during the developmental

phases and

> found it was not as clear as referential. However, I don't recall

using

> bipolar with a parietal site. I did try an occipital site (Oz)

suggested by

> E. Roy and found it was clearly not as good, so I figured that

anything

> closer would probably be even worse. Which site did you use?

> 3. Alertness is a unique protocol developed from further research

using

> these assumptions. It is proprietary and will remain so. This is

because

> it is obvious that you and others do not respect patent

restrictions. I

> decided to follow the example of Chuck on this one. In a

sense, those

> who have given me so much trouble about my patent and then infringed

it have

> killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Mum's the word on this

protocol

> and on several other advances we are developing. If you want access

to them,

> you will have to buy the Peak Achievement Trainer, wherein they can

be used

> but their nature still protected from prying eyes.

>

> Jon

>

> [biofeedback] Re: Terminology

>

>

> Jon,

>

> You argue that inhibiting the full spectrum is activating

> the brain, because it suppress the idling rhythm of the talamus. But

as far

> as I know this rhythm is the alpha rhythm. Therefore why not just

inhibit

> the alpha band instead of the full spectrum ?

>

> Moreover theta and gamma rhythms current densities have

> been shown to correlate positively with glucose metabolism in

prefrontal

> areas.

> refs:

> Pizzagalli, D. A., Oakes, T. R., son, R. J. (2003). Coupling of

theta

> activity and glucose metabolism in the human rostral anterior

cingulate

> cortex: An EEG/PET study of normal and depressed subjects

>

<http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2003/Coupling%20of%

20\

> theta%20activity%20and%20glucose%20metabolism.pdf> .

Psychophysiology, 40,

> 939-949. Oakes, T. R., Pizzagalli, D. A., Hendrick, A. M., Horras,

K. A.,

> Larson, C. L., Abercrombie, H. C., Schaefer, S. M., Koger, J. V.,

son,

> R. J. (2004). Functional coupling of simultaneous electrical and

metabolic

> activity in the human brain

>

<http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2004/Functional%

20cou\

> pling.pdf> . Human Brain Mapping, 21, 257-270.

>

> Especially the theta rhythm amplitude is correlated with metabolism

in the

> anterior cingulate, which is, as you know, an important area for the

control

> of attention and in prefrontal lobe, where you train with the InAll

> protocol. More generally, W.Klimesch links theta synchronization

with

> cognitive load

>

<http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?

q=theta+synchronization+review+AND+\

> %28author%3Aklimesch%29 & ds=jnl & g=s & t=all> .

>

> I tried prefrontal wideband (2-42) supression on myself and found it

> improving my concentration as expected, but I'm not sure wheter it

is

> related to activation of the area under the electrode. I must add

that

> trying bipolar (fronto-parietal) instead of referential " feels " the

same and

> at least as good for concentration (on myself - subjective feelings

).

>

> I have 3 questions regarding InAll protocol :

> 1) Did you try to inhibit alpha alone and compare it to wideband ?

shouldn't

> it " work " too ?

> 2) Did you try bipolar to compare it to referential ?

> 3) I didn't understand the difference between Focus alone and

> Focus/Alertness. What is the difference in the feedback, do you

reward being

> in a range instead of under a threshold ? or something else ?

>

> Regards

>

> Emmanuel

> > Dan, what you never understood, since you had never used wideband

> > suppression yourself, and never hooked anyone up with frontal,

> referential

> > InAll, is that activation of the frontal areas is clearly

associated

> with

> > single pointed attention, because what the frontal lobes do is

> modulate how

> > we pay attention. This experience is not necessarily relaxing.

In

> fact, as

> > our experience with the Alertness protocol clearly shows, maxing

out

> your

> > single pointed Focus is usually quite demanding and arousing.

However,

> > easing off the Alertness/arousal can produce a state of calm,

single

> pointed

> > (not quite maximal) Focus. Our newest software allows training

for

> > combinations of Focus and Alertness, with limits that can be

preset on

> both

> > sides to reflect the goal of training. The Yerkes-Dodson inverted

U

> shaped

> > curve relating performance to arousal suggests that there should

be a

> peak

> > arousal level, which we convert to training limits on the

Alertness

> > threshold display. Training can also be directed to achieving

lower

> degrees

> > of Alertness, such as the calm, single pointed Focus we strive for

in

> > meditation. I just developed a new protocol for this type of

training

> that

> > combines the best features of proportional and all-or-none

feedback,

> > providing soft sounds with pitch related to the Alertness level,

which

> then

> > increase abruptly in volume as you go outside the Zone.

> >

[Guest guest]

The montage of Inall protocol is one frontal site referenced to a

neutral site like earlobe.

The the protocol is described in the patent avalaible at the following

link :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2 & Sect2=HITOFF & p=1 & u=/netahtm\

l/search-bool.html & r=1 & f=G & l=50 & co1=AND & d=ptxt & s1=5,983,129.WKU. & OS=PN/5,983,129\

& RS=PN/5,983,129

(patent nb 5,983,129)

The location of the active electrode is described this way :

>The preferred location for detecting a signal emitted from an

individual's body is from the frontal or fronto-central midline

portion of the individual's brain at or near locations on the

individual's head typically referred to as FCz, Fz, AFz and FPz, where

concentration or single-pointed focus of attention on an object by the

individual causes organized brainwave patterns to diminish in

intensity. In general, detection of the desired signal can occur

within an area bounded by two lines, each running between the two

earlobes, one passing through the shallowest portion of the nose (the

nasion) and one passing through a point one inch forward of the

highest, most central part of the head (the vertex).

But I don't know if Jon Cowan uses any location in this area when he

does training or if he sticks to a specific one.

Emmanuel

>

> What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to

> look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a

> mention of fp1 being the other site.

>

> Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was

> not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no

> reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).

>

> I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1

> as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.

>

> Tommi

>

[Guest guest]

where would society be if the government did not protect intellectual

property the way that it protects real property?

sorry for going off topic

> >

> > What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I

tried to

> > look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only

find a

> > mention of fp1 being the other site.

> >

> > Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate

cortex was

> > not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's

no

> > reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).

> >

> > I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up

the fp1

> > as the other site now to see if there is any difference in

results.

> >

> > Tommi

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>