T3/T4 bipolar - what does it do?

[Guest guest]

- If your going to follow through with this it would be best to write down

wheter you feel more or less relaxed and more or less alert after each three

minutes of training and for each frequency window you're at when you do it. The

whole idea of the sweet spot is finding the optimum level in terms of both being

alert and relaxed when you hit the right frequency range. If you hit the right

frequency its something you should know right a way.

Also and very importantly note Steve's mention of windowing as small as .1. In

other words lets say you started at 10-13. If you decide to either move up or

down based on your response, do so at lets say 9.9-12.9 than 9.8-12.8, etc. etc

Bruce

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pete,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Was there any consistency in the recommendations you gave those

people you

> > > > > > > worked with? Or was it all different? I'm kinf of at a loss here.

I mean it

> > > > > > > makes sense that training that same protocol using lower

frequencies... (not

> > > > > > > high beta) would even things out. But it would be nice to hear

from someone

> > > > > > > who has actually fixed this issue...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, I confused by this response. Your training was done by someone from the

Othmer list and not this list, correct?

My sense is that Steve, is quite knowledgeable about he Othmer method even

though he is on this list too. I'm sure there are others too.

Bruce

>

> >

> > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

> >

> > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Merrifield, Ph.D.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I disagree with this completely. When I first started working with the T3-T4

training (which Pete taught me at a training in Chicago about 7 years ago) I

found that I would feel off all day, either hyper or hypo, as a result of

training just .1 off from the 'sweet spot'. It just takes a bit of

patience--and time--to find it. Your experience is completely in line with

mine, both personal and professional.

>

> Dear ,

>

> I am so very sorry that you had a negative training experience and that you

continue to feel uncomfortable.

>

> People are never as simple as a pattern of brainwave activity, and there is

much about you and your situation that we don't/can't know. Even people who

routinely are successful using the Othmer's optimized frequency approach find

that the reward frequency changes not infrequently. While I would never say

that it is impossible to leave somone stuck indefinitely in a bad state, this

doesn't appear to happen in the regular course of most neurofeedback training.

Otherwise we'd have many more people reporting lasting remission of symptoms

after one or two training sessions. And this just doesn't usually happen with

the frequency based approaches.

>

> Perhaps you are familiar with the scientific adage " correlation does not imply

causation. " I find myself wondering whether there might not be other factors,

perhaps of a medical or infectious nature, that have complicated your result.

Allergies, systemic illness (e.g., mold or lyme), heavy metal toxicity, can

certainly yield some perplexing training results.

>

> This is probably not what you want to hear, but it seems to me you will likely

never know for certain why you got an unwelcome response after training. For

this reason, it pains me to see you perpetuate your inquiry - possibly at the

expense of moving ahead with a solution that might leave you feeling better.

After all, a person only has so much energy. . . If you are planning on training

yourself, then I urge you to commit to some legitimate training. Take a course

with Pete van Deusen, or go to an Othmer training, or learn to use the LENS. If

you're not going to train yourself, then your limited knowledge will likely

leave you just second guessing your next clinician, and , frankly, most of us

clinicians are happy to collaborate but chafe at backseat driving.

>

> I don't know why your clinician trained you in the way you described. I do

know that the only person who can explain that is the actual clinician, and that

everything else is conjecture. If what you truly desire is to feel better, then

I encourage you to maybe shift your focus slightly, and put your energy into

feeling better rather than marinating in the confusing residue from your prior

neurofeedback. You're obviously a bright guy, and after you have properly

educated youself, maybe you will be in a better place to examine the prior

training.

>

> Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

>

> May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> Best wishes,

>

> Merrifield, Ph.D.

>

[Guest guest]

I disagree with this completely. When I first started working with the T3-T4

training (which Pete taught me at a training in Chicago about 7 years ago) I

found that I would feel off all day, either hyper or hypo, as a result of

training just .1 off from the 'sweet spot'. It just takes a bit of

patience--and time--to find it. Your experience is completely in line with

mine, both personal and professional.

>

> Dear ,

>

> I am so very sorry that you had a negative training experience and that you

continue to feel uncomfortable.

>

> People are never as simple as a pattern of brainwave activity, and there is

much about you and your situation that we don't/can't know. Even people who

routinely are successful using the Othmer's optimized frequency approach find

that the reward frequency changes not infrequently. While I would never say

that it is impossible to leave somone stuck indefinitely in a bad state, this

doesn't appear to happen in the regular course of most neurofeedback training.

Otherwise we'd have many more people reporting lasting remission of symptoms

after one or two training sessions. And this just doesn't usually happen with

the frequency based approaches.

>

> Perhaps you are familiar with the scientific adage " correlation does not imply

causation. " I find myself wondering whether there might not be other factors,

perhaps of a medical or infectious nature, that have complicated your result.

Allergies, systemic illness (e.g., mold or lyme), heavy metal toxicity, can

certainly yield some perplexing training results.

>

> This is probably not what you want to hear, but it seems to me you will likely

never know for certain why you got an unwelcome response after training. For

this reason, it pains me to see you perpetuate your inquiry - possibly at the

expense of moving ahead with a solution that might leave you feeling better.

After all, a person only has so much energy. . . If you are planning on training

yourself, then I urge you to commit to some legitimate training. Take a course

with Pete van Deusen, or go to an Othmer training, or learn to use the LENS. If

you're not going to train yourself, then your limited knowledge will likely

leave you just second guessing your next clinician, and , frankly, most of us

clinicians are happy to collaborate but chafe at backseat driving.

>

> I don't know why your clinician trained you in the way you described. I do

know that the only person who can explain that is the actual clinician, and that

everything else is conjecture. If what you truly desire is to feel better, then

I encourage you to maybe shift your focus slightly, and put your energy into

feeling better rather than marinating in the confusing residue from your prior

neurofeedback. You're obviously a bright guy, and after you have properly

educated youself, maybe you will be in a better place to examine the prior

training.

>

> Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

>

> May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> Best wishes,

>

> Merrifield, Ph.D.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

The Othmers run a list (by paid subscription) for people who have taken their training. As far as I know, there is no open forum. You might make this inquiry of them directly through the EEGinfo website.

Best wishes,

-------------- Original message from "arosenbl0" <arosenbl0@...>: --------------

Hi ,Is there such a list for the Othmers method? I appreciate you analysis of the situation, and that may well have been the case, but I am just trying to understand what the protocols used on me likely did and what they are intended to do - so I can decide what to do.thanks> > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.> > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.> Best wishes,> > Merrifield, Ph.D.>

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

The training was done by a practitioner in my town who after the few sessions of

training I kind of lost trust in. The reason I asked on this list (or any list

really) is because I have been unable to get the help I need in my town.

With respect to this list in particular, I didn't pick it to avoid the " othmer

list " or anything like that. I have read this list for a while and the people on

this list generally seem pretty thoughtful and helpful - sometimes moreso than

some other lists I have been on. I have no idea if the person I originally went

to is on this list or any lists.

The response below by me was in response to the suggestion (quoted with car

analogy) by that I might not get the answers I am looking for on this list

because its focused on the TLC method and not the Othmer method. Perhaps that

is the case... or perhaps it isn't. Thus I asked if there was an " Othmer " list

that I could also look at...

But if other people on this list feel differently than , by all means

continue the discussion on this topic. I am all ears. The more info the

better.

thanks for all the responses so far

> >

> > >

> > > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

> > >

> > > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Merrifield, Ph.D.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Heh... OK...

Well then is there any publicly available documentation of their method that I

could read. Textbook? Journal articles? Or do you really have to " pay to

play " (as bad as that sounds) to get what sounds like proprietary info.

>

> >

> > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

> >

> > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Merrifield, Ph.D.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

folks,

how about back channeling this conversation?

arosenbl0 wrote:

Heh... OK...

Well then is there any publicly available documentation of their method

that I could read. Textbook? Journal articles? Or do you really have to

"pay to play" (as bad as that sounds) to get what sounds like

proprietary info.

>

> >

> > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer

approach, but instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're

in a Lexus dealership asking questions about your Mercedes diesel

automobile. That there is not a convenient Mercedes dealership

available to you does not improve the likely outcome of taking your car

to the Lexus folks.

> >

> > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Merrifield, Ph.D.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

When clients provide us with evidence of bad effects from a school of NF that we

practice, it can be a challange to offer testable solutions that might help the

client rather than looking for something about the client to blame and allowing

the client to continue to provide further information so that others can offer

more specific suggestions.

I'm glad has had the courage to bring up such potentialy unwelcome results

to us and that he has recieved what I consider good advice on how he might now

proceed.

Bruce

> This is probably not what you want to hear, but it seems to me you >will

likely never know for certain why you got an unwelcome response >after training.

For this reason, it pains me to see you perpetuate >your inquiry - possibly at

the expense of moving ahead with a >solution that might leave you feeling

better.

[Guest guest]

>

> The response below by me was in response to the suggestion (quoted >with car

analogy) by that I might not get the answers I am >looking for on this list

because its focused on the TLC method and >not the Othmer method.

- When clients provide us with evidence of bad effects from a school of NF

that we practice, it can be a challange to offer testable solutions that might

help the client rather than looking for something about the client to blame and

allowing the client to continue to provide further information so that others

can offer more specific suggestions.

I'm glad you had the courage to bring up such potentialy unwelcome results to us

and that he has recieved what I consider good advice on how he might now

proceed.

Bruce

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

This site/frequency shifting approach, while strongly influenced by the Othmer's

clinician training courses, isn't totally unique to them at this point. I'd

simply check in on the more general " biofeedback " group. Plenty of folks

there have a breadth of different training experiences on both sides of the amp,

and can probably make some helpful suggestions.

I will say that you probably didn't change a " set point " , however. There really

isn't such a thing as a set point in physiology - the brain/body is a dynamic

system that tends to have points of stability (attractors), where it settles

into stable combinations of many variables - when pushed off of those points

tends to fall back into them. Specific " pushes " may result in the system

stabilizing around another attractor, so to speak.

Trying all those varied protocols probably wasn't the best thing for you, at

this view suggests that your brain was likely " ready " to go to this place - and

you encouraged it. e.g. it's not really the effect of a few min of training

that " caused " it, more like you tapped the right domino to cause a shift in

state. The good news, with this in mind, is that you don't really have to

figure out what you " did " , you just have to figure out what your brain likes,

and get it to switch over into a new equilibrium/attractor. Also, based on what

you are describing you probably had this pattern lying in wait, or have a

history of going to this type of regulatory over-activation - that's good to

know; even if it's unpleasant to experience right now, it's valuable information

for an experienced trainer.

There are lots of books you can get - try " Getting Started With Neurofeedback " ,

by Deimos (sp?), for instance.

Are you self-training at this point? If so, perhaps try a basic stabilizing

protocol like C4-A2 SMR up, Theta down, 22-30 down. If you find that C4 SMR

training continues to be hyper-arousing, then you might have high-frequency

alpha that you are pushing into anxious hypervigilance (e.g. you are training

high alpha instead of SMR). You can also try this at C3-A1, C4-Pz or Pz-T4, or

try rewarding a slightly slower frequency... one of those will probably " feel "

good. Keep careful track of protocols and effects, and I'd suggest NOT trying

more than one thing a day until you know what is doing what. You may like to

train directly for relaxation too, e.g. do some eyes-closed alpha training

(Oz-A2 or Pz-O2, 7-10 up, 4-7 down, for instance).

All this being said, since you are experiencing such a strong reaction, getting

a TLC assessment or a QEEG might make sense - if you can spot an underlying

hyper/hypocoherence or amplitude issue, you will have a much better chance of

actually nailing what is troubling you.

Lastly, to address the question of what is T3-T4 " doing " .. nobody can answer

this, really. Since you are training the subtraction between two temporal

sites, the change you are training could be caused by T3 going " up " , T4 going

" down " , some combination of the two, for instance.. and that's true for all of

the frequencies you are training - and they could each be causing different

responses. It's also quite likely some other cortical sites not under the

electrodes are contributing to the signal at the electrodes, and thus who knows

what you are " actually " training. You are possibly training hemispheric

asymmetry, for instance, with an electrode over each hemi and a subtraction

condition (which is why i suggest single-hemi protocols above).

Good luck!

Best,

--------------------------------

Hill, MA, C.Phil

Program in Cognitive Neuroscience

Department of Psychology, UCLA

www.zaidellab.org

On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:23 PM, arosenbl0 wrote:

> Heh... OK...

>

> Well then is there any publicly available documentation of their method that I

could read. Textbook? Journal articles? Or do you really have to " pay to

play " (as bad as that sounds) to get what sounds like proprietary info.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

I'm not at all bothered that has disclosed a negative training result. In my personal work and my work with clients, the people who have had atypical training experiences have had other issues going on, and it seems to me that it would be remiss not to bring this to 's attention. In regular office based practice, we have the benefit of taking a thorough history. Such is not the case with list based discourse.

Cordially,

-------------- Original message from "thor432001" <MindFitness@...>: --------------

When clients provide us with evidence of bad effects from a school of NF that we practice, it can be a challange to offer testable solutions that might help the client rather than looking for something about the client to blame and allowing the client to continue to provide further information so that others can offer more specific suggestions.I'm glad has had the courage to bring up such potentialy unwelcome results to us and that he has recieved what I consider good advice on how he might now proceed.Bruce> This is probably not what you want to hear, but it seems to me you >will likely never know for certain why you got an unwelcome response >after training. For this reason, it pains me to see you perpetuate >your inquiry - possibly at the expense of moving ahead with a >solution that might leave you feeling better.

[Guest guest]

Re: "When clients provide us with evidence of bad effects from a school of NF that we practice. . . "

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm primarily a LENSer, but continue to follow Pete's list and the Othmer list. It's been at least two years since I've done any operant paradigm work.

[Guest guest]

I think you are still missing the point: does not appear to have

experienced an " atypical " training response but one fully consistent with the

model from which his training was informed. The nf trainer trained him 'up' to

21-24, then left him there. I would have had the same response he had, and I

suspect many would have had, assuming a moderate degree of sensitivity to nf

training.

SDC

>

> Bruce,

>

> I'm not at all bothered that has disclosed a negative training result.

In my personal work and my work with clients, the people who have had atypical

training experiences have had other issues going on, and it seems to me that it

would be remiss not to bring this to 's attention. In regular office based

practice, we have the benefit of taking a thorough history. Such is not the

case with list based discourse.

>

> Cordially,

>

>

>

>

>

> -------------- Original message from " thor432001 " <MindFitness@...>:

--------------

>

>

> When clients provide us with evidence of bad effects from a school of NF that

we practice, it can be a challange to offer testable solutions that might help

the client rather than looking for something about the client to blame and

allowing the client to continue to provide further information so that others

can offer more specific suggestions.

>

> I'm glad has had the courage to bring up such potentialy unwelcome

results to us and that he has recieved what I consider good advice on how he

might now proceed.

>

> Bruce

>

> > This is probably not what you want to hear, but it seems to me you >will

likely never know for certain why you got an unwelcome response >after training.

For this reason, it pains me to see you perpetuate >your inquiry - possibly at

the expense of moving ahead with a >solution that might leave you feeling

better.

>

[Guest guest]

:

If you google " eeg info newsletter " and search the archive section you can find

articles containing a full explication of the Othmer training model. (For what

it's worth, I've found that this type of approach works a bit better when

applied to oneself than to others because it depends on an accurate appraisal of

ongoing subjective events, which can be difficult to measure in others,

especially children. Although all approaches depend on this to some degree,

some, like Pete's and Demos' rely on objective assessment.)

> >

> > >

> > > Most of the people on this list do not train with the Othmer approach, but

instead use Pete's assessment process. It's like you're in a Lexus dealership

asking questions about your Mercedes diesel automobile. That there is not a

convenient Mercedes dealership available to you does not improve the likely

outcome of taking your car to the Lexus folks.

> > >

> > > May you find the relief that you are seeking in 2010.

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Merrifield, Ph.D.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

I appreciate your profound level headedness in trying to understand the

condition in which you remain following your neurofeedback training.

By the way, I agree with the recent comments by and . And

although this discussion may seem to some like 'protocol wars' and a waste

of time to eager beginners, any of us could find ourselves as agents in this

drama.

I apologize that, since I do not know you , I must generalize. In my

opinion, all biofeedback best operates by giving clients controllable access

to 1) new states or 2) states previously forgotten or suppressed. Change is

not always about going from one stable state to another. Sometimes there is

interim instability involved. Just ask anyone who has tried to break an

addiction.

It is clear from your previous description that the person 'training' you

was not following current Othmer guidelines. I am not entitled to speak on

the Othmers' behalf since I have not undergone their training, nor am I

privileged to know their current speculations regarding mechanisms. So

perhaps I will be adding fuel to the fire.

The Othmer bipolar protocol, in my limited understanding, is primarily low

frequency. In their first protocol guide they recommended starting at SMR

frequencies and adjusting as needed, usually down. In their current guide

they recommend that most cases will start low (delta range) and go lower. A

key component, in my opinion, is the careful and correct use of multiple

inhibits. I suspect that if you query your practitioner well, she or he will

admit only passing familiarity with this aspect of training.

If multiple inhibits spanning the spectrum were not used in your sessions

then your training was clearly not related to that of the Othmers. It is

surprising to note the number of professionals who do not understand the

rationale, role or employment of multiple inhibits.

Furthermore, I cringe when you write that you are were trained at " 0-3 Hz "

as the last attempt at finding a frequency for you on Day 1. No system does

this. Even the Othmers' own hardware and software is limited to low ranges

around 0.01 Hz. Any (ANY) engineer will tell you that such low frequencies

are impossible to analyze with any software filter and give timely feedback

information. So at that frequency you are not training the amplitudes of

these signals. However, you are still likely training the hemispheres to be

more different, which may be the core mechanism involved in the frequent

success of this technique.

Research has shown that the ability to robustly change the EEG phase

(difference) between the two hemispheres influences sensory and cognitive

throughput [ 1 ]. It has also been shown that the resonant frequencies of

the default mode network and the anti-correlated attentional networks are in

the 0.01-0.10 Hz range [ 2,3 ]. Clearly, this frequency range, which does

not show up on QEEG, but which is nevertheless susceptible to influence by

neurofeedback, is a crucial basis for functioning.

Cory Hammond and Kirk wrote an impressive article in which they cited

the relatively high incidence of negative effects with this type of

training. I am clearly in a minority when I speculate on the possible

mechanism. As Monto stated [ 1 ], increased cognitive and sensory throughput

result from robust ability to alter the phase relationships of the

hemispheres. The inter-individual variability of the anatomy of the corpus

callosum alone should make it clear that results might vary. In fact the

corpus callosum is frequently disorganized as a result of PTSD due to

childhood trauma [ 5,6 ]. I usually tell students that if they are not

comfortable treating PTSD without neurofeedback, they will not be

comfortable doing so with neurofeedback. Many people spend many years trying

to NOT have valid perception of their sensory and cognitive streams, as a

result of early trauma. NFB can put people in touch with states that beg to

be regulated!

Were you aware that neurofeedback may not be efficient/effective if there

are certain other arousal issues? [ 7,8 ].

In your particular situation I would think that some high frequency cortical

rogue excursions may be an issue. They may have been aggravated by the

training. Such excess power dissipations are a regular feature of most

chronic neurologic disorders [ 9 ]. This in itself argues for the routine

usefulness of multiple inhibits.

Such excess beta excursions are SOMETIMES dealt with expeditiously through

alpha-theta neurofeedback [ 10,11,12,13,14,15 ].

As a final caveat in this affair, you should know that changing the

frequency of cortical activity changes the underlying perfusion and thus the

oxidative load [ 15 ]. This can be problematic for some individuals. For

example, first and second degree 'normal' relatives of those affected by

many common disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, etc), can

have crises when placed under excess oxidative stress. A perusal of the

literature related to glutathione and n-acetylcysteine will show this to be

an important and manageable issue. Widespread single nucleotide

polymorphisms related to production of such neurotransmitters as GABA are

also important to consider [ 16 ].

You WILL hear it commonly said that neurofeedback will change a person's

response to drugs and medications (e.g., ritalin) . What is not commonly

discussed, and perhaps even more important, is the altered requirements for

nutrients related to neuroinflammation, neuroregulation, and

neuroplasticity that are affected when clients change their habitual

patterns through training.

I know your issue has appeared on this website where most of the people have

had the good fortune of having studied with Pete. I apologize for diluting

the stream here, because I have a tremendous deal of respect for Pete, his

teachings, and his students. I hope that my experience in complementary

areas might be of value.

Keep searching . I look forward to hearing in the near future that you are

doing well.

Dailey, L.Ac., BCIAC, BCIA-EEG, QEEG-D

Near San Francisco CA

mind@...

[1] Monto S, et al (2008) - Very slow EEG fluctuations predict the dynamics

of stimulus detection and oscillation amplitudes in humans. J of

Neuroscience, August 13, 2008, 28(33):8268-8272

[2] Cordes D, et al (2001) - Frequencies contributing to functional

connectivity in the cerebral cortex in 'resting-state' data. Am J

Neuroradiol 22:1326-1333, August 2001

[3] Mantini D, et al (2007) - Electrophysiological signature of resting

state networks in the human brain. Proc Nat Acad Sciences, August 7, 2007,

vol. 104, no. 32

[4] Hammond DC, et al (2008) - First do no harm - Adverse effects and the

need for practice standards in neurofeedback. Journal of Neurotherapy, Vol.

12(1) 2008

[5] Villarreal G, et al (2004) - Reduced area of the corpus callosum in

posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 131 (2004)

227- 235

[6] Teicher MH, et al (2004) - Childhood neglect is associated with reduced

corpus callosum area. Biological Psychiatry 2004; 56:80-85

[7] Differential Shaping of EEG Theta Rhythms. Biofeedback and

Self-Regulation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1976

[8] Takahashi T, et al (2005) - Changes in EEG and autonomic nervous

activity during mediation and their association with personality traits.

International Journal of Psychophysiology 55 (2005) 199- 207

[9] Llinas RR, et al (1999) - Thalamocortical dysrhythmia - A neurological

and neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by magnetoencephalography. Proc

Nat Acad Sci, Dec 21, 1999 Vol 96, No 26

[10] Egner T, Zech TF, Gruzelier JH. The effects of neurofeedback training

on the spectral topography of the electroencephalogram. Clin Neurophysiol.

2004 Nov;115(11):2452-60.

[11] Begic D, Hotujac L, Jokic-Begic N. Electroencephalographic comparison

of veterans with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder and healthy

subjects. Int J Psychophysiol. 2001 Mar;40(2):167-72.

[12] Aftanas LI, Golocheikine SA. Human anterior and frontal midline theta

and lower alpha reflect emotionally positive state and internalized

attention: high-resolution EEG investigation of meditation. Neurosci Lett.

2001 Sep 7;310(1):57-60.

[13] Mizuki Y, Hashimoto M, Tanaka T, Inanaga K, Tanaka M. A new

physiological tool for assessing anxiolytic effects in humans: frontal

midline theta activity. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1983;80(4):311-4.

[14] Kubota Y, Sato W, Toichi M, Murai T, Okada T, Hayashi A, Sengoku A.

Frontal midline theta rhythm is correlated with cardiac autonomic activities

during the performance of an attention demanding meditation procedure. Brain

Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Apr;11(2):281-7.

[15] Mizuki Y, Kajimura N, Nishikori S, Imaizumi J, Yamada M. Appearance of

frontal midline theta rhythm and personality traits. Folia Psychiatr Neurol

Jpn. 1984;38(4):451-8

[16] Leuchter AF, et al (1999) - Relationship between brain electrical

activity and cortical perfusion in normal subjects. Psychiatry Research:

Neuroimaging Section 90 _1999. 125]140.

[17] Ames BN, et al (2008) - High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant

enzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity - Relevance to genetic

disease and polymorphisms. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:616-58

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

I think with regard to all of this

discussion many are missing Pete’s main point. You train the client

and not the protocol. There are many tools you can have in your toolbox

but if you follow a decisive decision tree you will eventually fall upon the

right protocol that works for the client. Pete has offered that decision

tree with his TLC method. Also, one protocol does not a successful

training plan make. In my practice I usually run a protocol up to three

times before I decide whether the client is non reactive to it. With that

being said I can remember a client I had who had tremendous anger issues and running

protocols at T3T4, C4 SMR, C4-Pz reward 12-15 without any good results.

It wasn’t until I ran the last straw which was C4-Pz reward (.1-1.0) did

he finally relax. It is the only time I had ever had to go down to Othmer

ultra low frequency to get results. In fact nowadays if you were to take

Othmer training most of what you would learn is ultra low frequency

training. With that being said, with the overwhelming majority of my clients

I simply listen to what they say and react accordingly using Pete’s TLC

method and never have to reach way into the toolbox to pull the Othmer stuff

out. Patience and a good ear to the client is the key.

Jeff

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Dailey

Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009

9:14 AM

Subject: RE: Re:

T3/T4 bipolar - what does it do?

Hello ,

I appreciate your profound level headedness in trying to understand the

condition in which you remain following your neurofeedback training.

By the way, I agree with the recent comments by and . And

although this discussion may seem to some like 'protocol wars' and a waste

of time to eager beginners, any of us could find ourselves as agents in this

drama.

I apologize that, since I do not know you , I must generalize. In my

opinion, all biofeedback best operates by giving clients controllable access

to 1) new states or 2) states previously forgotten or suppressed. Change is

not always about going from one stable state to another. Sometimes there is

interim instability involved. Just ask anyone who has tried to break an

addiction.

It is clear from your previous description that the person 'training' you

was not following current Othmer guidelines. I am not entitled to speak on

the Othmers' behalf since I have not undergone their training, nor am I

privileged to know their current speculations regarding mechanisms. So

perhaps I will be adding fuel to the fire.

The Othmer bipolar protocol, in my limited understanding, is primarily low

frequency. In their first protocol guide they recommended starting at SMR

frequencies and adjusting as needed, usually down. In their current guide

they recommend that most cases will start low (delta range) and go lower. A

key component, in my opinion, is the careful and correct use of multiple

inhibits. I suspect that if you query your practitioner well, she or he will

admit only passing familiarity with this aspect of training.

If multiple inhibits spanning the spectrum were not used in your sessions

then your training was clearly not related to that of the Othmers. It is

surprising to note the number of professionals who do not understand the

rationale, role or employment of multiple inhibits.

Furthermore, I cringe when you write that you are were trained at " 0-3

Hz "

as the last attempt at finding a frequency for you on Day 1. No system does

this. Even the Othmers' own hardware and software is limited to low ranges

around 0.01 Hz. Any (ANY) engineer will tell you that such low frequencies

are impossible to analyze with any software filter and give timely feedback

information. So at that frequency you are not training the amplitudes of

these signals. However, you are still likely training the hemispheres to be

more different, which may be the core mechanism involved in the frequent

success of this technique.

Research has shown that the ability to robustly change the EEG phase

(difference) between the two hemispheres influences sensory and cognitive

throughput [ 1 ]. It has also been shown that the resonant frequencies of

the default mode network and the anti-correlated attentional networks are in

the 0.01-0.10 Hz range [ 2,3 ]. Clearly, this frequency range, which does

not show up on QEEG, but which is nevertheless susceptible to influence by

neurofeedback, is a crucial basis for functioning.

Cory Hammond and Kirk wrote an impressive article in which they cited

the relatively high incidence of negative effects with this type of

training. I am clearly in a minority when I speculate on the possible

mechanism. As Monto stated [ 1 ], increased cognitive and sensory throughput

result from robust ability to alter the phase relationships of the

hemispheres. The inter-individual variability of the anatomy of the corpus

callosum alone should make it clear that results might vary. In fact the

corpus callosum is frequently disorganized as a result of PTSD due to

childhood trauma [ 5,6 ]. I usually tell students that if they are not

comfortable treating PTSD without neurofeedback, they will not be

comfortable doing so with neurofeedback. Many people spend many years trying

to NOT have valid perception of their sensory and cognitive streams, as a

result of early trauma. NFB can put people in touch with states that beg to

be regulated!

Were you aware that neurofeedback may not be efficient/effective if there

are certain other arousal issues? [ 7,8 ].

In your particular situation I would think that some high frequency cortical

rogue excursions may be an issue. They may have been aggravated by the

training. Such excess power dissipations are a regular feature of most

chronic neurologic disorders [ 9 ]. This in itself argues for the routine

usefulness of multiple inhibits.

Such excess beta excursions are SOMETIMES dealt with expeditiously through

alpha-theta neurofeedback [ 10,11,12,13,14,15 ].

As a final caveat in this affair, you should know that changing the

frequency of cortical activity changes the underlying perfusion and thus the

oxidative load [ 15 ]. This can be problematic for some individuals. For

example, first and second degree 'normal' relatives of those affected by

many common disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, etc), can

have crises when placed under excess oxidative stress. A perusal of the

literature related to glutathione and n-acetylcysteine will show this to be

an important and manageable issue. Widespread single nucleotide

polymorphisms related to production of such neurotransmitters as GABA are

also important to consider [ 16 ].

You WILL hear it commonly said that neurofeedback will change a person's

response to drugs and medications (e.g., ritalin) . What is not commonly

discussed, and perhaps even more important, is the altered requirements for

nutrients related to neuroinflammation, neuroregulation, and

neuroplasticity that are affected when clients change their habitual

patterns through training.

I know your issue has appeared on this website where most of the people have

had the good fortune of having studied with Pete. I apologize for diluting

the stream here, because I have a tremendous deal of respect for Pete, his

teachings, and his students. I hope that my experience in complementary

areas might be of value.

Keep searching . I look forward to hearing in the near future that you are

doing well.

Dailey, L.Ac., BCIAC, BCIA-EEG, QEEG-D

Near San Francisco CA

mindgrowing

[1] Monto S, et al (2008) - Very slow EEG fluctuations predict the dynamics

of stimulus detection and oscillation amplitudes in humans. J of

Neuroscience, August 13, 2008, 28(33):8268-8272

[2] Cordes D, et al (2001) - Frequencies contributing to functional

connectivity in the cerebral cortex in 'resting-state' data. Am J

Neuroradiol 22:1326-1333, August 2001

[3] Mantini D, et al (2007) - Electrophysiological signature of resting

state networks in the human brain. Proc Nat Acad Sciences, August 7, 2007,

vol. 104, no. 32

[4] Hammond DC, et al (2008) - First do no harm -

Adverse effects and the

need for practice standards in neurofeedback. Journal of Neurotherapy, Vol.

12(1) 2008

[5] Villarreal G, et al (2004) - Reduced area of the corpus callosum in

posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 131 (2004)

227- 235

[6] Teicher MH, et al (2004) - Childhood neglect is associated with reduced

corpus callosum area. Biological Psychiatry 2004; 56:80-85

[7] Differential Shaping of EEG Theta Rhythms. Biofeedback and

Self-Regulation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1976

[8] Takahashi T, et al (2005) - Changes in EEG and autonomic nervous

activity during mediation and their association with personality traits.

International Journal of Psychophysiology 55 (2005) 199- 207

[9] Llinas RR, et al (1999) - Thalamocortical dysrhythmia - A neurological

and neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by magnetoencephalography.

Proc

Nat Acad Sci, Dec 21, 1999 Vol 96, No 26

[10] Egner T, Zech TF, Gruzelier JH. The effects of neurofeedback training

on the spectral topography of the electroencephalogram. Clin Neurophysiol.

2004 Nov;115(11):2452-60.

[11] Begic D, Hotujac L, Jokic-Begic N. Electroencephalographic comparison

of veterans with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder and healthy

subjects. Int J Psychophysiol. 2001 Mar;40(2):167-72.

[12] Aftanas LI, Golocheikine SA. Human anterior and frontal midline theta

and lower alpha reflect emotionally positive state and internalized

attention: high-resolution EEG investigation of meditation. Neurosci Lett.

2001 Sep 7;310(1):57-60.

[13] Mizuki Y, Hashimoto M, Tanaka T, Inanaga K, Tanaka M. A new

physiological tool for assessing anxiolytic effects in humans: frontal

midline theta activity. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1983;80(4):311-4.

[14] Kubota Y, Sato W, Toichi M, Murai T, Okada T, Hayashi A, Sengoku A.

Frontal midline theta rhythm is correlated with cardiac autonomic activities

during the performance of an attention demanding meditation procedure. Brain

Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Apr;11(2):281-7.

[15] Mizuki Y, Kajimura N, Nishikori S, Imaizumi J, Yamada M. Appearance of

frontal midline theta rhythm and personality traits. Folia Psychiatr Neurol

Jpn. 1984;38(4):451-8

[16] Leuchter AF, et al (1999) - Relationship between brain electrical

activity and cortical perfusion in normal subjects. Psychiatry Research:

Neuroimaging Section 90 _1999. 125]140.

[17] Ames BN, et al (2008) - High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant

enzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity - Relevance to genetic

disease and polymorphisms. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:616-58