RE: Re: Product comparison...

December 4, 2009

Hi Pete-I'm not particularly interested in or investigating Holosync, but thanks for writing such a good explanation of the contrast between the significantly different processes involved in that and NF. Would you be willing to describe the differences between Zengar NF and more directed NF in as helpful a way or is that too likely to start an overly heated conversation thread here?I'm still new enough that I haven't had enough experiences to create my own fully informed understandings or opinions and am still trying to learn from all the discussion boards while teasing out the lines between zealousness and discourse.Thanks a lot- "There is a crack in everything and that is how the light gets in."

Leonard Cohenfmcverry@...; From: pvdtlc@...Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 07:32:37 -0200Subject: Re: Product comparison...

,How do (essentially) binaural beats "bombard the mind with neuroconnections" and what exactly does it mean for the "two sides...seem balanced"? In somewhat simple (but fairly accurate) terms, the brain is constantly producing local, regional and global patterns of energy. Depending on how slow or fast the electrical pulses provided by neurons may be, the mental state changes: our ability to perform functions, experience or control emotions, our sensory acuity, our degree of creative/intuitive vs. logical/rational thought and many other things change. These changes obviously happen on a moment-by-moment basis, but we all have fairly stable ranges of each of these in which we tend to operate, patterns of behavior and emotion and performance that remain quite stable over time. Those are based on the brain's "activation patterns", which are a way of talking about the energy "habits" of a given brain and the relationships between energy in various parts of the brain. It would be great to believe that simply "balancing" a brain would solve everything--and it sounds so attractive--but what the heck would that mean? It's like saying we're going to "balance" a football team or an orchestra. It's meaningless.

If you want to improve a complex energy environment like either of these, you look at what parts are doing what you want, which are not, how they are "off" from what you need, and then you start making individual changes. These often have global effects. Changing one offensive lineman may suddenly mean that the team is able to run the ball more effectively. But that has an effect on the quarterback's passing, because he doesn't need to pass on every play, so the opposing defense can't set up all their efforts simply to stop him. And it has an effect on the team's own defense, becaus its offense can hold the ball and move it more slowly and for longer periods of time, allowing the defense to rest between times on the field.

The brain is essentially an organ that receives information from outside (sensory inputs) and inside (memories, emotional responses, associations with previous experience), integrates all this and responds to it with motor outputs (speaking, acting) and changes in its own body's internal environment. This is a constant cycle with outputs creating inputs (how did the teacher respond to what I said) which create more outputs, which result in more inputs ad infinitum.

Holosync (and other systems of binaural beats) essentially provide the brain with a fairly radical change in its environmental inputs. You close your eyes, block out sounds other than the beats, sit in a comfortable place, etc. The only inputs to the brain are (mostly) beats which are produced at a particular or various frequencies. The evidence is that, in this relatively artificial state, the brain will begin to move toward the frequency of the beats. If you produce beats at 10 Hz, the brain will begin to produce more 10 Hz. That energy change can result in a change in mental/experiential state. I guess one could accurately use the term "bombards", since that is what binaural beat training in a closed environment does. But what that has to do with "neuroconnections" is beyond me. If you play fast dance music very loud in a situation where you have nothing to do but listen to it, that may change your energy level (you dance). But connections are formed by experience, by learning. The two are not connected.

Moreover, it is less clear whether--once the brain has this "driving" effect removed and returns to the more complex and variable situation in which it usually processes (eyes open, ears hearing multiple inputs, movements, physical touch sensations, scents, desired outcomes, responses coming from other independent sources (the teacher is angry today or is in love today)--it will sustain the results of the beats. When the music goes away and you leave the studio and go back to work, do you maintain the high level of energy or fall back into the habitual energy patterns your brain produces to THAT environment?

Neurofeedback works on a very different principle. Neurofeedback is an accurate and focused mirror that reflects the brain to itself through its sensory inputs. It can reflect via visual, auditory and other sensory modes. It can also focus on very specific elements of the brain's performance, like a football coach might focus on the play of the interior linemen on running plays or a conductor focusing on the clarinets in a certain passage of a certain piece. The goal is, by providing accurate and immediate feedback to the brain about its habitual patterns, to coach it into shifting those and making the new patterns a new habit.

The difference is that, with neurofeedback, the brain makes the changes itself, actually adjusting its own stable patterns, where AVS training pushes it into a new place. The former is likely, if the results are good, to become stable fairly quickly. The latter, like taking a drug, can give the client/brain an experience of being in a different place, but it doesn't teach it how to get there on its own.

Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235

The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM, McVerry <fmcverrygmail> wrote:

I also forwarded the information on the Northern Virginia support group to my sister who lives in Arlington. She is also expressing interest in this for her family.

At the same time, I am sharing this information and your website with some others from a Holosync forum. They, like me, seem somewhat disheartened with the results, though we all admit that it has helped to a certain degree.

These people that I know that do Holosync are trying to put their arms around how the final result of H/S is or isn't similar to the results that can be experienced from NF. To me it seems like H/S simply bombards the mind with neuroconnections till a point that the two sides only seem balanced. I really don't want to spend an hour a day for seven years to find out that it didn't live up to what can be achieved with NF in a matter of months. What is your take on "brain entrainment" products in general? Would you know where lies the difference in the overall process and the final results?

Thanks again,

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Van Deusen <pvdtlcgmail> wrote:

,As is often the case with neurofeedback, no one can really say (or at least demonstrate or prove) that any system is better than any other. We can certainly say that there are groupings of approaches in the field. At one end of the spectrum are the systems like neuro optimal which don't look at the brain, don't care what the symptoms are, always place the electrodes in the same place and always train the same thing. There are quite a few of these approaches--mostly centering around the central strip from C3 to C4--ranging from very simple (always place the electrodes at C3/C4, inhibit 3-7 Hz and reware 12-15 Hz) to the very complex (like NeuroOptimal). The other end of the spectrum says that you should never train a brain without a detailed view of what it is already doing, having some idea what the client likes and wants to change about his/her performance and producing a specific plan of where and what to train for that brain.

The TLC system falls somewhere in the middle of that range, a bit toward the latter end of the scale. We recommend looking at the brain's activation patterns in terms of their internal relationships (not compared to some kind of "normative" database as QEEG does) and deciding, based on what the client wants to change, where and what to train.

The TLC system costs about $1500, where the Zengar is around 6 times as much. But you are correct that the Zengar sysem is much easier to use. You always put the electrodes in exactly the same place and the software makes all the decisions for you. If it works, it's great. If it doesn't, unfortunately you really don't know what to do next, since you don't really know why you were doing what you were doing. You could always go ahead and spend another $500-1500 for a QEEG, but you really couldn't use the Zengar system to train whatever recommendations were made, since it pretty much does what it does.

I don't know if this is helpful or not. If you are really interested in Zengar, I would find someone who uses it and try a few sessions. If you notice a positive effect, then you can always buy a system. If not, you could save yourself a bunch of money.

Pete

Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox. Check it out

December 4, 2009

Thank you , for that very fine explanation.

I would like to offer up a theory that one reason a brain moves toward the

frequency of the beats is simple resonance. Just plain physics - frequencies

move toward harmony with one another. That is one way I look at the " why " of

" how " it works. There actually is some order in the universe. Although don't use

me as an example. ;-)

Sometimes I wonder if the frequencies of the tones could be chosen as a harmonic

or maybe anti-harmonic as the case may be to assist where we want thigs to go.

Have any studies like this been done?

Helvey

President, TRC Inc

574-536-9401

chelvey@...

Re: Product comparison...

,

How do (essentially) binaural beats " bombard the mind with neuroconnections "

and what exactly does it mean for the " two sides...seem balanced " ?

In somewhat simple (but fairly accurate) terms, the brain is constantly

producing local, regional and global patterns of energy. Depending on how

slow or fast the electrical pulses provided by neurons may be, the mental

state changes: our ability to perform functions, experience or control

emotions, our sensory acuity, our degree of creative/intuitive vs.

logical/rational thought and many other things change. These changes

obviously happen on a moment-by-moment basis, but we all have fairly stable

ranges of each of these in which we tend to operate, patterns of behavior

and emotion and performance that remain quite stable over time. Those are

based on the brain's " activation patterns " , which are a way of talking about

the energy " habits " of a given brain and the relationships between energy in

various parts of the brain. It would be great to believe that simply

" balancing " a brain would solve everything--and it sounds so attractive--but

what the heck would that mean? It's like saying we're going to " balance " a

football team or an orchestra. It's meaningless.

If you want to improve a complex energy environment like either of these,

you look at what parts are doing what you want, which are not, how they are

" off " from what you need, and then you start making individual changes.

These often have global effects. Changing one offensive lineman may

suddenly mean that the team is able to run the ball more effectively. But

that has an effect on the quarterback's passing, because he doesn't need to

pass on every play, so the opposing defense can't set up all their efforts

simply to stop him. And it has an effect on the team's own defense, becaus

its offense can hold the ball and move it more slowly and for longer periods

of time, allowing the defense to rest between times on the field.

The brain is essentially an organ that receives information from outside

(sensory inputs) and inside (memories, emotional responses, associations

with previous experience), integrates all this and responds to it with motor

outputs (speaking, acting) and changes in its own body's internal

environment. This is a constant cycle with outputs creating inputs (how did

the teacher respond to what I said) which create more outputs, which result

in more inputs ad infinitum.

Holosync (and other systems of binaural beats) essentially provide the brain

with a fairly radical change in its environmental inputs. You close your

eyes, block out sounds other than the beats, sit in a comfortable place,

etc. The only inputs to the brain are (mostly) beats which are produced at

a particular or various frequencies. The evidence is that, in this

relatively artificial state, the brain will begin to move toward the

frequency of the beats. If you produce beats at 10 Hz, the brain will begin

to produce more 10 Hz. That energy change can result in a change in

mental/experiential state. I guess one could accurately use the term

" bombards " , since that is what binaural beat training in a closed

environment does. But what that has to do with " neuroconnections " is beyond

me. If you play fast dance music very loud in a situation where you have

nothing to do but listen to it, that may change your energy level (you

dance). But connections are formed by experience, by learning. The two are

not connected.

Moreover, it is less clear whether--once the brain has this " driving " effect

removed and returns to the more complex and variable situation in which it

usually processes (eyes open, ears hearing multiple inputs, movements,

physical touch sensations, scents, desired outcomes, responses coming from

other independent sources (the teacher is angry today or is in love

today)--it will sustain the results of the beats. When the music goes away

and you leave the studio and go back to work, do you maintain the high level

of energy or fall back into the habitual energy patterns your brain produces

to THAT environment?

Neurofeedback works on a very different principle. Neurofeedback is an

accurate and focused mirror that reflects the brain to itself through its

sensory inputs. It can reflect via visual, auditory and other sensory

modes. It can also focus on very specific elements of the brain's

performance, like a football coach might focus on the play of the interior

linemen on running plays or a conductor focusing on the clarinets in a

certain passage of a certain piece. The goal is, by providing accurate and

immediate feedback to the brain about its habitual patterns, to coach it

into shifting those and making the new patterns a new habit.

The difference is that, with neurofeedback, the brain makes the changes

itself, actually adjusting its own stable patterns, where AVS training

pushes it into a new place. The former is likely, if the results are good,

to become stable fairly quickly. The latter, like taking a drug, can give

the client/brain an experience of being in a different place, but it doesn't

teach it how to get there on its own.

Pete

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlc@...

http://www.brain-trainer.com

USA 305 433 3160

BR 47 3346 6235

The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM, McVerry <fmcverry@...> wrote:

> I also forwarded the information on the Northern Virginia support group to

> my sister who lives in Arlington. She is also expressing interest in this

> for her family.

>

> At the same time, I am sharing this information and your website with some

> others from a Holosync forum. They, like me, seem somewhat disheartened

> with the results, though we all admit that it has helped to a certain

> degree.

>

> These people that I know that do Holosync are trying to put their arms

> around how the final result of H/S is or isn't similar to the results that

> can be experienced from NF. To me it seems like H/S simply bombards the

> mind with neuroconnections till a point that the two sides only seem

> balanced. I really don't want to spend an hour a day for seven years to

> find out that it didn't live up to what can be achieved with NF in a matter

> of months. What is your take on " brain entrainment " products in general?

> Would you know where lies the difference in the overall process and the

> final results?

>

> Thanks again,

>

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Van Deusen <pvdtlc@...>wrote:

>

>> ,

>>

>> As is often the case with neurofeedback, no one can really say (or at

>> least demonstrate or prove) that any system is better than any other. We

>> can certainly say that there are groupings of approaches in the field. At

>> one end of the spectrum are the systems like neuro optimal which don't look

>> at the brain, don't care what the symptoms are, always place the electrodes

>> in the same place and always train the same thing. There are quite a few of

>> these approaches--mostly centering around the central strip from C3 to

>> C4--ranging from very simple (always place the electrodes at C3/C4, inhibit

>> 3-7 Hz and reware 12-15 Hz) to the very complex (like NeuroOptimal). The

>> other end of the spectrum says that you should never train a brain without a

>> detailed view of what it is already doing, having some idea what the client

>> likes and wants to change about his/her performance and producing a specific

>> plan of where and what to train for that brain.

>>

>> The TLC system falls somewhere in the middle of that range, a bit toward

>> the latter end of the scale. We recommend looking at the brain's activation

>> patterns in terms of their internal relationships (not compared to some kind

>> of " normative " database as QEEG does) and deciding, based on what the client

>> wants to change, where and what to train.

>>

>> The TLC system costs about $1500, where the Zengar is around 6 times as

>> much. But you are correct that the Zengar sysem is much easier to use. You

>> always put the electrodes in exactly the same place and the software makes

>> all the decisions for you. If it works, it's great. If it doesn't,

>> unfortunately you really don't know what to do next, since you don't really

>> know why you were doing what you were doing. You could always go ahead and

>> spend another $500-1500 for a QEEG, but you really couldn't use the Zengar

>> system to train whatever recommendations were made, since it pretty much

>> does what it does.

>>

>> I don't know if this is helpful or not. If you are really interested in

>> Zengar, I would find someone who uses it and try a few sessions. If you

>> notice a positive effect, then you can always buy a system. If not, you

>> could save yourself a bunch of money.

>>

>> Pete

>>

>

deOplossing mail scanned using Symantec Security for Mail Servers

December 4, 2009

Soutar gave a workshop at iSNR 4 or 5 years ago on using AVS

in conjunction with NFB. He used a Q to identify frequencies of

interest. If he wanted to decrease a theta peak at 6hz he would set

the flicker to the first harmonic (12 hz) plus one hz. He said it

worked really well. I suspect that it helps with training in that it

takes down the peak and allows for training to progress more

efficiently. Using different mechanisms but in a similar manner the

Roshi and pRosh can do much the same.

I have used the QDS photo-stim in a similar manner. Set up to flicker

at 2 times the dominant frequency (+ - .5hz in the band of interest.

For slow wave problems I use a multiplier, if the problematic

frequencies are in the faster range then I use a divisor eg dominant

frequency 20-28 dived by 2 (-.5 hz)

georgemartin@...

www.northstarneurofeedback.com

On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Helvey wrote:

> Thank you , for that very fine explanation.

>

> I would like to offer up a theory that one reason a brain moves

> toward the frequency of the beats is simple resonance. Just plain

> physics - frequencies move toward harmony with one another. That is

> one way I look at the " why " of " how " it works. There actually is

> some order in the universe. Although don't use me as an example. ;-)

>

> Sometimes I wonder if the frequencies of the tones could be chosen

> as a harmonic or maybe anti-harmonic as the case may be to assist

> where we want thigs to go.

>

> Have any studies like this been done?

>

> Helvey

> President, TRC Inc

> 574-536-9401

> chelvey@...

>

> Re: Product comparison...

>

> ,

>

> How do (essentially) binaural beats " bombard the mind with

> neuroconnections "

> and what exactly does it mean for the " two sides...seem balanced " ?

>

> In somewhat simple (but fairly accurate) terms, the brain is

> constantly

> producing local, regional and global patterns of energy. Depending

> on how

> slow or fast the electrical pulses provided by neurons may be, the

> mental

> state changes: our ability to perform functions, experience or control

> emotions, our sensory acuity, our degree of creative/intuitive vs.

> logical/rational thought and many other things change. These changes

> obviously happen on a moment-by-moment basis, but we all have fairly

> stable

> ranges of each of these in which we tend to operate, patterns of

> behavior

> and emotion and performance that remain quite stable over time.

> Those are

> based on the brain's " activation patterns " , which are a way of

> talking about

> the energy " habits " of a given brain and the relationships between

> energy in

> various parts of the brain. It would be great to believe that simply

> " balancing " a brain would solve everything--and it sounds so

> attractive--but

> what the heck would that mean? It's like saying we're going to

> " balance " a

> football team or an orchestra. It's meaningless.

>

> If you want to improve a complex energy environment like either of

> these,

> you look at what parts are doing what you want, which are not, how

> they are

> " off " from what you need, and then you start making individual

> changes.

> These often have global effects. Changing one offensive lineman may

> suddenly mean that the team is able to run the ball more

> effectively. But

> that has an effect on the quarterback's passing, because he doesn't

> need to

> pass on every play, so the opposing defense can't set up all their

> efforts

> simply to stop him. And it has an effect on the team's own defense,

> becaus

> its offense can hold the ball and move it more slowly and for longer

> periods

> of time, allowing the defense to rest between times on the field.

>

> The brain is essentially an organ that receives information from

> outside

> (sensory inputs) and inside (memories, emotional responses,

> associations

> with previous experience), integrates all this and responds to it

> with motor

> outputs (speaking, acting) and changes in its own body's internal

> environment. This is a constant cycle with outputs creating inputs

> (how did

> the teacher respond to what I said) which create more outputs, which

> result

> in more inputs ad infinitum.

>

> Holosync (and other systems of binaural beats) essentially provide

> the brain

> with a fairly radical change in its environmental inputs. You close

> your

> eyes, block out sounds other than the beats, sit in a comfortable

> place,

> etc. The only inputs to the brain are (mostly) beats which are

> produced at

> a particular or various frequencies. The evidence is that, in this

> relatively artificial state, the brain will begin to move toward the

> frequency of the beats. If you produce beats at 10 Hz, the brain

> will begin

> to produce more 10 Hz. That energy change can result in a change in

> mental/experiential state. I guess one could accurately use the term

> " bombards " , since that is what binaural beat training in a closed

> environment does. But what that has to do with " neuroconnections "

> is beyond

> me. If you play fast dance music very loud in a situation where you

> have

> nothing to do but listen to it, that may change your energy level (you

> dance). But connections are formed by experience, by learning. The

> two are

> not connected.

>

> Moreover, it is less clear whether--once the brain has this

> " driving " effect

> removed and returns to the more complex and variable situation in

> which it

> usually processes (eyes open, ears hearing multiple inputs, movements,

> physical touch sensations, scents, desired outcomes, responses

> coming from

> other independent sources (the teacher is angry today or is in love

> today)--it will sustain the results of the beats. When the music

> goes away

> and you leave the studio and go back to work, do you maintain the

> high level

> of energy or fall back into the habitual energy patterns your brain

> produces

> to THAT environment?

>

> Neurofeedback works on a very different principle. Neurofeedback is

> an

> accurate and focused mirror that reflects the brain to itself

> through its

> sensory inputs. It can reflect via visual, auditory and other sensory

> modes. It can also focus on very specific elements of the brain's

> performance, like a football coach might focus on the play of the

> interior

> linemen on running plays or a conductor focusing on the clarinets in a

> certain passage of a certain piece. The goal is, by providing

> accurate and

> immediate feedback to the brain about its habitual patterns, to

> coach it

> into shifting those and making the new patterns a new habit.

>

> The difference is that, with neurofeedback, the brain makes the

> changes

> itself, actually adjusting its own stable patterns, where AVS training

> pushes it into a new place. The former is likely, if the results

> are good,

> to become stable fairly quickly. The latter, like taking a drug,

> can give

> the client/brain an experience of being in a different place, but it

> doesn't

> teach it how to get there on its own.

>

> Pete

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> USA 305 433 3160

> BR 47 3346 6235

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM, McVerry <fmcverry@...>

> wrote:

>

>> I also forwarded the information on the Northern Virginia support

>> group to

>> my sister who lives in Arlington. She is also expressing interest

>> in this

>> for her family.

>>

>> At the same time, I am sharing this information and your website

>> with some

>> others from a Holosync forum. They, like me, seem somewhat

>> disheartened

>> with the results, though we all admit that it has helped to a certain

>> degree.

>>

>> These people that I know that do Holosync are trying to put their

>> arms

>> around how the final result of H/S is or isn't similar to the

>> results that

>> can be experienced from NF. To me it seems like H/S simply

>> bombards the

>> mind with neuroconnections till a point that the two sides only seem

>> balanced. I really don't want to spend an hour a day for seven

>> years to

>> find out that it didn't live up to what can be achieved with NF in

>> a matter

>> of months. What is your take on " brain entrainment " products in

>> general?

>> Would you know where lies the difference in the overall process and

>> the

>> final results?

>>

>> Thanks again,

>>

>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Van Deusen

>> <pvdtlc@...>wrote:

>>

>>> ,

>>>

>>> As is often the case with neurofeedback, no one can really say (or

>>> at

>>> least demonstrate or prove) that any system is better than any

>>> other. We

>>> can certainly say that there are groupings of approaches in the

>>> field. At

>>> one end of the spectrum are the systems like neuro optimal which

>>> don't look

>>> at the brain, don't care what the symptoms are, always place the

>>> electrodes

>>> in the same place and always train the same thing. There are

>>> quite a few of

>>> these approaches--mostly centering around the central strip from

>>> C3 to

>>> C4--ranging from very simple (always place the electrodes at C3/

>>> C4, inhibit

>>> 3-7 Hz and reware 12-15 Hz) to the very complex (like

>>> NeuroOptimal). The

>>> other end of the spectrum says that you should never train a brain

>>> without a

>>> detailed view of what it is already doing, having some idea what

>>> the client

>>> likes and wants to change about his/her performance and producing

>>> a specific

>>> plan of where and what to train for that brain.

>>>

>>> The TLC system falls somewhere in the middle of that range, a bit

>>> toward

>>> the latter end of the scale. We recommend looking at the brain's

>>> activation

>>> patterns in terms of their internal relationships (not compared to

>>> some kind

>>> of " normative " database as QEEG does) and deciding, based on what

>>> the client

>>> wants to change, where and what to train.

>>>

>>> The TLC system costs about $1500, where the Zengar is around 6

>>> times as

>>> much. But you are correct that the Zengar sysem is much easier to

>>> use. You

>>> always put the electrodes in exactly the same place and the

>>> software makes

>>> all the decisions for you. If it works, it's great. If it doesn't,

>>> unfortunately you really don't know what to do next, since you

>>> don't really

>>> know why you were doing what you were doing. You could always go

>>> ahead and

>>> spend another $500-1500 for a QEEG, but you really couldn't use

>>> the Zengar

>>> system to train whatever recommendations were made, since it

>>> pretty much

>>> does what it does.

>>>

>>> I don't know if this is helpful or not. If you are really

>>> interested in

>>> Zengar, I would find someone who uses it and try a few sessions.

>>> If you

>>> notice a positive effect, then you can always buy a system. If

>>> not, you

>>> could save yourself a bunch of money.

>>>

>>> Pete

>>>

>>

>

> deOplossing mail scanned using Symantec Security for Mail Servers

>

> ------------------------------------

>

December 4, 2009

,There are some folks on the list who are much more experienced (and probably up-to-date) on NeuroCarePro (NCP) or whatever the latest version of the training software from Val Brown and Zengar is. I'm sure they'll respond to your question with some interesting explanations. I'll tell you what I know and think so they can clarify and correct as they choose.

I would say that one way to look at the history of neurofeedback would be by focusing on the search for the magic bullet--the training that could be used with any brain to resolve any problem. Tansey was perhaps the first proponent of one of these. He used a large elongated electrode over Cz and trained to increase 14 Hz. I believe he also inhibited 3-7 and perhaps very high frequencies but I don't recall that with certainty. He published cases with ADHD, learning disabilities, anxiety and probably other issues in which he produced very good results without an assessment always using the same sites and the same frequencies.

von Hilsheimer (often adamantly) states that he never uses anything but C3/C4 bipolar training, inhibiting 3-7 and 23-35 or thereabouts and rewarding 12-15 Hz (or some band with 13 Hz in the middle). He calls this the Sterman protocol, because it was used in one of Barry Sterman's early studies with seizure disorders. doesn't do assessments and always puts the electrodes in the same place and trains the same thing for all problems.

Both of these approaches, like the early Lubar and Othmer systems which grew out of them, train focusing on the sensorimotor cortex between C3 and C4. That happens to be a very good place to train for several reasons. The entire area is strongly connected to the thalamus and the area around Cz is connected with the basal ganglia--two structures which are important in control and filtering. The sensorimotor cortex also happens to be a fairly safe place to train--rarely producing reactions which are very negative.

Branching out from the theta/beta/smr approach to training that led the resurgence of neurofeedback in the early 90's with a focus on cognitive issues like ADD/ADHD, people like Les Fehmi and Jim Hardt focused strictly on alpha, increasing its amplitude and connectedness.

Len Ochs, and Val Brown have turned focus to specific measures. Len demonstrated the relationship between amplitude and performance (lower is better in general) with his Flexyx and later LENS devices. has developed protocols for directly training entropy. Val Brown focused his attention on variability in the EEG after initial passes at the 5-phase model and then a 3-phase system. Neurocare Pro grew out of this and he formed Zengar Institute to sell, train and promote this approach.

NCP uses sophisticated filtering and control systems so that the electrodes can always be placed at C3/A1 and C4/A2. There is no assessment, and I've heard Val say that he doesn't particularly care what the client wants to change. NCP works for everything and everyobody (more or less). The software is constantly scanning for " emergent variability " , which is that frequency which is starting to go out of control. It then shifts its feedback to focus on that and reduce the variability of that signal. I wouldn't be surprised if there are later iterations of this over the last year or so.

Certainly the work of these pioneers has been very important in our learning about training the brain. Tansey and Sterman and Lubar and the Othmers focused us on the central strip which is used today as a very good place to train for many issues. Len Ochs, and Val Brown have brought their measures into the lexicon of neurofeedback as strong indicators of inhibitory failures and their negative effect on brain performance. Each has adherents to his system, and all of us who work with other approaches--if we are paying attention--have learned from what they have done.

Obviously I have settled on an approach that involves looking at the brain in detail through the window of what the client wants to change. If I find coherence high or low and that finding seems to fit with the client's issues, I'll try training that. Ditto for specific frequencies, for peak frequencies in certain bands, for location and behavior of frequencies around the brain. It's certainly a more complicated way to decide what and where to train, and I can't prove that it works any better or with any greater percent of clients. Unfortunately no one can demonstrate that for any approach.

Don't know if this helps, but hopefully we'll hear from some others as well.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...

http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Larsen <julhowsash@...> wrote:

Hi Pete-I'm not particularly interested in or investigating Holosync, but thanks for writing such a good explanation of the contrast between the significantly different processes involved in that and NF. Would you be willing to describe the differences between Zengar NF and more directed NF in as helpful a way or is that too likely to start an overly heated conversation thread here?

I'm still new enough that I haven't had enough experiences to create my own fully informed understandings or opinions and am still trying to learn from all the discussion boards while teasing out the lines between zealousness and discourse.

December 4, 2009

Pete,

I always find your explanations to be useful, and I do so appreciate your attempts to be objective and evenhanded. This leads me to inquire, "How's the book coming alomg?"

-------------- Original message from Van Deusen <pvdtlc@...>: --------------

,There are some folks on the list who are much more experienced (and probably up-to-date) on NeuroCarePro (NCP) or whatever the latest version of the training software from Val Brown and Zengar is. I'm sure they'll respond to your question with some interesting explanations. I'll tell you what I know and think so they can clarify and correct as they choose.I would say that one way to look at the history of neurofeedback would be by focusing on the search for the magic bullet--the training that could be used with any brain to resolve any problem. Tansey was perhaps the first proponent of one of these. He used a large elongated electrode over Cz and trained to increase 14 Hz. I believe he also inhibited 3-7 and perhaps very high frequencies but I don't recall that with certainty. He published cases with ADHD, learning disabilities, anxiety and probably other issues in which he produced very good results without an assessment always using the same sites and the same frequencies. von Hilsheimer (often adamantly) states that he never uses anything but C3/C4 bipolar training, inhibiting 3-7 and 23-35 or thereabouts and rewarding 12-15 Hz (or some band with 13 Hz in the middle). He calls this the Sterman protocol, because it was used in one of Barry Sterman's early studies with seizure disorders. doesn't do assessments and always puts the electrodes in the same place and trains the same thing for all problems.Both of these approaches, like the early Lubar and Othmer systems which grew out of them, train focusing on the sensorimotor cortex between C3 and C4. That happens to be a very good place to train for several reasons. The entire area is strongly connected to the thalamus and the area around Cz is connected with the basal ganglia--two structures which are important in control and filtering. The sensorimotor cortex also happens to be a fairly safe place to train--rarely producing reactions which are very negative.Branching out from the theta/beta/smr approach to training that led the resurgence of neurofeedback in the early 90's with a focus on cognitive issues like ADD/ADHD, people like Les Fehmi and Jim Hardt focused strictly on alpha, increasing its amplitude and connectedness.Len Ochs, and Val Brown have turned focus to specific measures. Len demonstrated the relationship between amplitude and performance (lower is better in general) with his Flexyx and later LENS devices. has developed protocols for directly training entropy. Val Brown focused his attention on variability in the EEG after initial passes at the 5-phase model and then a 3-phase system. Neurocare Pro grew out of this and he formed Zengar Institute to sell, train and promote this approach. NCP uses sophisticated filtering and control systems so that the electrodes can always be placed at C3/A1 and C4/A2. There is no assessment, and I've heard Val say that he doesn't particularly care what the client wants to change. NCP works for everything and everyobody (more or less). The software is constantly scanning for "emergent variability", which is that frequency which is starting to go out of control. It then shifts its feedback to focus on that and reduce the variability of that signal. I wouldn't be surprised if there are later iterations of this over the last year or so.Certainly the work of these pioneers has been very important in our learning about training the brain. Tansey and Sterman and Lubar and the Othmers focused us on the central strip which is used today as a very good place to train for many issues. Len Ochs, and Val Brown have brought their measures into the lexicon of neurofeedback as strong indicators of inhibitory failures and their negative effect on brain performance. Each has adherents to his system, and all of us who work with other approaches--if we are paying attention--have learned from what they have done.Obviously I have settled on an approach that involves looking at the brain in detail through the window of what the client wants to change. If I find coherence high or low and that finding seems to fit with the client's issues, I'll try training that. Ditto for specific frequencies, for peak frequencies in certain bands, for location and behavior of frequencies around the brain. It's certainly a more complicated way to decide what and where to train, and I can't prove that it works any better or with any greater percent of clients. Unfortunately no one can demonstrate that for any approach.Don't know if this helps, but hopefully we'll hear from some others as well.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Larsen <julhowsashmsn> wrote:

Hi Pete-

I'm not particularly interested in or investigating Holosync, but thanks for writing such a good explanation of the contrast between the significantly different processes involved in that and NF. Would you be willing to describe the differences between Zengar NF and more directed NF in as helpful a way or is that too likely to start an overly heated conversation thread here?

I'm still new enough that I haven't had enough experiences to create my own fully informed understandings or opinions and am still trying to learn from all the discussion boards while teasing out the lines between zealousness and discourse.

December 7, 2009

Hi Pete-Thanks so much for such a full and concise response putting all these approaches into a a historical perspective. Best I've heard yet and it helps clarify my thinking in regard to my son's brain training. It's clear that the editor for your book won't have to work very hard. I'll look forward to reading it when and if. Would you agree with the prevailing statements that no negative side affects can occur with Zengar NeurOptimal? It would seem that that would be a strong draw for parents like me who have kids who respond with extreme sensitivity to specific frequencies and training sites, but then I wonder about losing out on a certain level of impact that training with more flexibility and specificity could bring.Well, it is clear that trying any or all NF approaches to find out what works with my child or others I might work with is the only way to get answers specific to them, but I still find it really useful to hear the opinions/experiences of others not wed to a single technique. Pete? or any more takers?Thanks! "There is a crack in everything and that is how the light gets in."

Leonard Cohen From: pvdtlc@...Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:47:46 -0200Subject: Re: Re: Product comparison...

,There are some folks on the list who are much more experienced (and probably up-to-date) on NeuroCarePro (NCP) or whatever the latest version of the training software from Val Brown and Zengar is. I'm sure they'll respond to your question with some interesting explanations. I'll tell you what I know and think so they can clarify and correct as they choose.

I would say that one way to look at the history of neurofeedback would be by focusing on the search for the magic bullet--the training that could be used with any brain to resolve any problem. Tansey was perhaps the first proponent of one of these. He used a large elongated electrode over Cz and trained to increase 14 Hz. I believe he also inhibited 3-7 and perhaps very high frequencies but I don't recall that with certainty. He published cases with ADHD, learning disabilities, anxiety and probably other issues in which he produced very good results without an assessment always using the same sites and the same frequencies.

von Hilsheimer (often adamantly) states that he never uses anything but C3/C4 bipolar training, inhibiting 3-7 and 23-35 or thereabouts and rewarding 12-15 Hz (or some band with 13 Hz in the middle). He calls this the Sterman protocol, because it was used in one of Barry Sterman's early studies with seizure disorders. doesn't do assessments and always puts the electrodes in the same place and trains the same thing for all problems.

Both of these approaches, like the early Lubar and Othmer systems which grew out of them, train focusing on the sensorimotor cortex between C3 and C4. That happens to be a very good place to train for several reasons. The entire area is strongly connected to the thalamus and the area around Cz is connected with the basal ganglia--two structures which are important in control and filtering. The sensorimotor cortex also happens to be a fairly safe place to train--rarely producing reactions which are very negative.

Branching out from the theta/beta/smr approach to training that led the resurgence of neurofeedback in the early 90's with a focus on cognitive issues like ADD/ADHD, people like Les Fehmi and Jim Hardt focused strictly on alpha, increasing its amplitude and connectedness.

Len Ochs, and Val Brown have turned focus to specific measures. Len demonstrated the relationship between amplitude and performance (lower is better in general) with his Flexyx and later LENS devices. has developed protocols for directly training entropy. Val Brown focused his attention on variability in the EEG after initial passes at the 5-phase model and then a 3-phase system. Neurocare Pro grew out of this and he formed Zengar Institute to sell, train and promote this approach.

NCP uses sophisticated filtering and control systems so that the electrodes can always be placed at C3/A1 and C4/A2. There is no assessment, and I've heard Val say that he doesn't particularly care what the client wants to change. NCP works for everything and everyobody (more or less). The software is constantly scanning for "emergent variability", which is that frequency which is starting to go out of control. It then shifts its feedback to focus on that and reduce the variability of that signal. I wouldn't be surprised if there are later iterations of this over the last year or so.

Certainly the work of these pioneers has been very important in our learning about training the brain. Tansey and Sterman and Lubar and the Othmers focused us on the central strip which is used today as a very good place to train for many issues. Len Ochs, and Val Brown have brought their measures into the lexicon of neurofeedback as strong indicators of inhibitory failures and their negative effect on brain performance. Each has adherents to his system, and all of us who work with other approaches--if we are paying attention--have learned from what they have done.

Obviously I have settled on an approach that involves looking at the brain in detail through the window of what the client wants to change. If I find coherence high or low and that finding seems to fit with the client's issues, I'll try training that. Ditto for specific frequencies, for peak frequencies in certain bands, for location and behavior of frequencies around the brain. It's certainly a more complicated way to decide what and where to train, and I can't prove that it works any better or with any greater percent of clients. Unfortunately no one can demonstrate that for any approach.

Don't know if this helps, but hopefully we'll hear from some others as well.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail

http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Larsen <julhowsashmsn> wrote:

Hi Pete-I'm not particularly interested in or investigating Holosync, but thanks for writing such a good explanation of the contrast between the significantly different processes involved in that and NF. Would you be willing to describe the differences between Zengar NF and more directed NF in as helpful a way or is that too likely to start an overly heated conversation thread here?

I'm still new enough that I haven't had enough experiences to create my own fully informed understandings or opinions and am still trying to learn from all the discussion boards while teasing out the lines between zealousness and discourse.

Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift. Click here to download.

December 7, 2009

I don't have enough information to agree that no negative effects could occur with ANY neurofeedback system. I'm not aware of any that could say that.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...

http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Larsen <julhowsash@...> wrote:

Hi Pete-Thanks so much for such a full and concise response putting all these approaches into a a historical perspective. Best I've heard yet and it helps clarify my thinking in regard to my son's brain training. It's clear that the editor for your book won't have to work very hard. I'll look forward to reading it when and if.

Would you agree with the prevailing statements that no negative side affects can occur with Zengar NeurOptimal? It would seem that that would be a strong draw for parents like me who have kids who respond with extreme sensitivity to specific frequencies and training sites, but then I wonder about losing out on a certain level of impact that training with more flexibility and specificity could bring.

Well, it is clear that trying any or all NF approaches to find out what works with my child or others I might work with is the only way to get answers specific to them, but I still find it really useful to hear the opinions/experiences of others not wed to a single technique.

Pete? or any more takers?Thanks! " There is a crack in everything and that is how the light gets in. "

Leonard Cohen From: pvdtlc@...

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:47:46 -0200Subject: Re: Re: Product comparison...