T3/T4 bipolar - what does it do?

December 7, 2009

Hi,

I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to me what

this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these sites and

work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the expected effect

in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in frequencies using this

location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly at the temporal lobes

(where its placed) or do the effects come from a global shifting?

This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong reactions

to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what it is intending

on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in the EEG.

if anyone can tell me or point me to a good article I'd appreciate it.

thanks

December 8, 2009

,In any channel, you are training the difference between the active and reference electrodes in specific frequencies.Monopolar montages (e.g. C3/A1) place the reference over a relatively inert EEG site (earlobe or mastoid bone)

Thus the signal would be the signal at the Active site (C3) minus a value near zero (the earlobe)--or the value at the active site.Thus one could assume that any changes upward or downward in the signal would result from changes at the active site.

Bipolar montages (e.g. T3/T4) place active and reference electrodes over active EEG sites.The signal you train is the DIFFERENCE between those two sites in a particular frequency--not the absolute value at either.

Thus if you train to decrease the signal, you are making the sites more alike; increasing makes them more different.The Othmers, who use this sort of training almost exclusively, have claimed that training bipolar montages has (or can have) an effect on coherence (actually on phase relationships) between the sites in a particular frequency band.

When two signals are perfectly in phase (wave peaks lined up and wave troughs lined up) presumably the difference between the two signals will be very small. So training to reduce the difference in a bipolar montage MAY have the effect of moving two signals in phase with one another.

When two signals are 180 out of phase (peaks lined up with troughs and vice-versa), the difference between points on the two waves should be its maximum (highest point minus lowest point). So training to increase difference could have the result of moving the waveforms out of phase. Note that being out of phase does not, however, mean that the signals are not coherent.

There are also many other ways a brain could respond to a bipolar demand to (let's say) reduce the difference between two sites. 1. it could raise the amplitude at the lower site; 2. it could lower the amplitude at the higher site; 3. it could move them toward each other; 4. it could raise both but the lower more than the upper value; 5. it could lower both, but the upper value more than the lower value.

With a monopolar montage, you can have some knowledge of how the brain is responding to the challenge. With a bipolar montage you cannot, since you can't actually see either signal--only the difference between them. It's possible to do about the same thing by training 2 channels (e.g. T3/A2/g/T4/A1) and training the difference between them (either up or down) except that you can see how the channels are responding. You could even track coherence between the sites (which you can't do in a bipolar montage).

The 2C Sum Difference Squish, for example, is a TLC design which allows the trainer to define a band in which the difference between the sites will be trained AND define a band in which the sum will be trained--both being inhibited. If you saw that a client had high amplitudes in high-beta at T3 and T4, and that they were quite asymmetrical, with a bipolar montage you could train to reduce the difference between them, but you would have no way of seeing if you actually reduced their ampltudes. With the 2C Sum Difference, you could train to reduce the difference AND train to reduce the total activity at the same time.

It's very possible--as the later Othmer approaches seem to indicate--that these protocols primarily depend oo their training up of (at least the difference in) very slow frequencies.Pete--

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

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote:

I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a global shifting?

This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what it is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in the EEG.

December 8, 2009

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. But in practical terms, what does doing this type

of training intend to effect in terms of symptoms? My experience is that when

higher beta frequencies were rewarded it " changed the slope of the arousal

curve " to be more steep, possibly increasingly so (although I'm not sure

exponentially). Thus, following that training sensory stimulation and emotional

material caused a ramp up in mood/stimulation feeling much quicker than it had

before - creating the effect of mood instability and general hyperexcitability.

The opposite was true for rewarding lower frequencies. Is that what's suppose

to happen?

And I'm not sure what " training the difference means " . Can you give an example?

ie. Lets say you are using that protocol and you reward 18-21hz, you are saying

the " difference " between the two sites. I understand " difference " in the

absolute sense as in if one site is 15hz and one is 12hz, the difference is 3hz,

but how does the reward frequency play into it here?

Also maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if someone trained using

that procotol and the effect was undersirable (severe overarousal/increased

vigilence or the opposite) whats the " normal " range of frequencies to reward to

get someone back to " normal " . What is desirable here?

Also maybe you explained this in your explanation and I just missed this, but

what effects would you expect the protocol to have on the rest of the cortex?

ie Does training " up " into the beta/high beta range at T3/T4 tend to promote

beta, or a more rapid shift to beta, in general across the cortex (ie the

frontal lobes)? Or just the temporal lobes? Am I just not thinking of this

correctly?

thanks

>

> > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to

> > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these

> > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the

> > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in

> > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly

> > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > global shifting?

> >

> > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what it

> > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in

> > the EEG.

> >

>

December 8, 2009

,I hope you are speaking hypothetically when you talk about traiing up beta or high beta in a bipolar montage. That would generally be a very bad idea. I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis " changing the shape of the arousal curve " . But the traditional use of these protocols is to squash all frequencies and train up a band starting (initially) with 12-15 Hz (now often much lower than that) and keep moving that band down, searching for the " sweet spot " where the client feels a release. I've ended up getting, I think, 6 folks referred to me who had been trained to reward beta and high-beta, and generally the results were not pretty.

In practical terms, as I was trying to say in my email, though perhaps not bluntly enough, I haven't the foggiest idea what the effect of this approach is supposed to be except " good " . It is a recipe approach that is used for all clients with all kinds of problems, often without any idea what the brain is actually doing in terms of activation patterns, and it is reputed, by those who are believers, to cure all ills--unless it doesn't.

When you train in any EEG channel, you take the signal at the active electrode and subtract from it the signal at the reference electrode. Hence, in simplified terms, if there are 15u of theta at T4 and 13u of theta at T3, then you will see 2 Hz as your training signal. It doesn't matter whether you are training slow or fast frequencies, training them up or down, all you are telling the brain to change is the difference between the two. Of course it's not that simple because the signals are each viewable as oscillating waveforms, so sometimes one will be peaking while the other is bottoming, etc. It's (in most software) the peak-to-peak value of the difference between the two waveforms in that frequency band.

Certainly the Othmers presented the notion that if you produced a " negative " effect with a particular training, then you just train a different frequency to " reverse " it. Again, with reference to the cases that ended up coming to me, lots of " reversing " had been tried to no effect. It's kind of like saying, " if I hit someone over the head with a baseball bat and they don't like it, what shall I hit them with to make them feel better? "

If the Othmers, in all their years of teaching this approach, were never really able to present what I felt was a very cogent explanation of what it was doing (in fact they presented many, but they kept changing), I would not have any hope of trying to do so. I don't use their approach and haven't since the mid-90's when they were teaching over/under/unstable arousal, which did make some sense to me. Hopefully there are others on the list who are more versed in this approach who can answer your questions better than I.

If, as I infer from your email, either you or someone you know has been trained with this approach and has had unpleasant results that are not necessarily going away, then my recommendation would be to stop doing it. If you can get an assessment or QEEG done to look at what your brain is currently doing, then it's possible you can get some recommendations on how to move it in a better direction. I did have good success with the 6 clients I worked with, but it wasn't using bipolar montages, and it wasn't an immediate quick fix.

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

The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. But in practical terms, what does doing this type of training intend to effect in terms of symptoms? My experience is that when higher beta frequencies were rewarded it " changed the slope of the arousal curve " to be more steep, possibly increasingly so (although I'm not sure exponentially). Thus, following that training sensory stimulation and emotional material caused a ramp up in mood/stimulation feeling much quicker than it had before - creating the effect of mood instability and general hyperexcitability. The opposite was true for rewarding lower frequencies. Is that what's suppose to happen?

And I'm not sure what " training the difference means " . Can you give an example? ie. Lets say you are using that protocol and you reward 18-21hz, you are saying the " difference " between the two sites. I understand " difference " in the absolute sense as in if one site is 15hz and one is 12hz, the difference is 3hz, but how does the reward frequency play into it here?

Also maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if someone trained using that procotol and the effect was undersirable (severe overarousal/increased vigilence or the opposite) whats the " normal " range of frequencies to reward to get someone back to " normal " . What is desirable here?

Also maybe you explained this in your explanation and I just missed this, but what effects would you expect the protocol to have on the rest of the cortex? ie Does training " up " into the beta/high beta range at T3/T4 tend to promote beta, or a more rapid shift to beta, in general across the cortex (ie the frontal lobes)? Or just the temporal lobes? Am I just not thinking of this correctly?

thanks

>

> > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to

> > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these

> > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the

> > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in

> > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly

> > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > global shifting?

> >

> > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what it

> > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in

> > the EEG.

> >

>

December 8, 2009

Pete,Rob Coben has reported that he trains beta up in bipolar training. He bases his training on QEEG and will train up a band if there is hypercoherence. The results he presented at iSNR a couple years ago showed small increases in the amplitude of the band trained along with decrease in coherence in that same band. He does also use many other training methods including both nirHEG and pirHEG. georgemartin@...www.northstarneurofeedback.com On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Van Deusen wrote:,I hope you are speaking hypothetically when you talk about traiing up beta or high beta in a bipolar montage. That would generally be a very bad idea. I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis "changing the shape of the arousal curve". But the traditional use of these protocols is to squash all frequencies and train up a band starting (initially) with 12-15 Hz (now often much lower than that) and keep moving that band down, searching for the "sweet spot" where the client feels a release. I've ended up getting, I think, 6 folks referred to me who had been trained to reward beta and high-beta, and generally the results were not pretty.In practical terms, as I was trying to say in my email, though perhaps not bluntly enough, I haven't the foggiest idea what the effect of this approach is supposed to be except "good". It is a recipe approach that is used for all clients with all kinds of problems, often without any idea what the brain is actually doing in terms of activation patterns, and it is reputed, by those who are believers, to cure all ills--unless it doesn't.When you train in any EEG channel, you take the signal at the active electrode and subtract from it the signal at the reference electrode. Hence, in simplified terms, if there are 15u of theta at T4 and 13u of theta at T3, then you will see 2 Hz as your training signal. It doesn't matter whether you are training slow or fast frequencies, training them up or down, all you are telling the brain to change is the difference between the two. Of course it's not that simple because the signals are each viewable as oscillating waveforms, so sometimes one will be peaking while the other is bottoming, etc. It's (in most software) the peak-to-peak value of the difference between the two waveforms in that frequency band.Certainly the Othmers presented the notion that if you produced a "negative" effect with a particular training, then you just train a different frequency to "reverse" it. Again, with reference to the cases that ended up coming to me, lots of "reversing" had been tried to no effect. It's kind of like saying, "if I hit someone over the head with a baseball bat and they don't like it, what shall I hit them with to make them feel better?"If the Othmers, in all their years of teaching this approach, were never really able to present what I felt was a very cogent explanation of what it was doing (in fact they presented many, but they kept changing), I would not have any hope of trying to do so. I don't use their approach and haven't since the mid-90's when they were teaching over/under/unstable arousal, which did make some sense to me. Hopefully there are others on the list who are more versed in this approach who can answer your questions better than I.If, as I infer from your email, either you or someone you know has been trained with this approach and has had unpleasant results that are not necessarily going away, then my recommendation would be to stop doing it. If you can get an assessment or QEEG done to look at what your brain is currently doing, then it's possible you can get some recommendations on how to move it in a better direction. I did have good success with the 6 clients I worked with, but it wasn't using bipolar montages, and it wasn't an immediate quick fix.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 305 433 3160BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote: Hi,Thanks for the explanation. But in practical terms, what does doing this type of training intend to effect in terms of symptoms? My experience is that when higher beta frequencies were rewarded it "changed the slope of the arousal curve" to be more steep, possibly increasingly so (although I'm not sure exponentially). Thus, following that training sensory stimulation and emotional material caused a ramp up in mood/stimulation feeling much quicker than it had before - creating the effect of mood instability and general hyperexcitability. The opposite was true for rewarding lower frequencies. Is that what's suppose to happen?And I'm not sure what "training the difference means". Can you give an example? ie. Lets say you are using that protocol and you reward 18-21hz, you are saying the "difference" between the two sites. I understand "difference" in the absolute sense as in if one site is 15hz and one is 12hz, the difference is 3hz, but how does the reward frequency play into it here? Also maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if someone trained using that procotol and the effect was undersirable (severe overarousal/increased vigilence or the opposite) whats the "normal" range of frequencies to reward to get someone back to "normal". What is desirable here? Also maybe you explained this in your explanation and I just missed this, but what effects would you expect the protocol to have on the rest of the cortex? ie Does training "up" into the beta/high beta range at T3/T4 tend to promote beta, or a more rapid shift to beta, in general across the cortex (ie the frontal lobes)? Or just the temporal lobes? Am I just not thinking of this correctly? thanks> > > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to> > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these> > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the> > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in> > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly> > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a> > global shifting?> >> > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong> > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what it> > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in> > the EEG.> >>

--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

December 8, 2009

Hi,

I do train beta up using bipolar montage. I've never have any problems. On the

contrary,

I've good and fairly fast results. One just have to know what is training for

and where.

Also. one just have to take into consideration that bipolar montage is quite

insensitive to

global effects but very much so to local events. Tom Collura has published a

paper where

recommends monopolar, but even he says that bipolar, " under certain conditions "

is not always wrong.

Also, the article fails completely to take into consideration the EEG phase

excitability cycle,

being the down slope phase of the EEG cycle more ready to excite than the up

slope, which

means that even when the EEG from both sites are out of phase, there is always

one

site which is ready to excite. I did this work some time ago and you can have a

look at:

http://cienciacognitiva.planetaclix.pt/MPhil.html

<http://cienciacognitiva.planetaclix.pt/MPhil.html>

The monopolar, on the contrary, in relation to training, is always half as ready

as the bipolar

montage. This is perhaps the reason why using the bipolar montage the training

is much faster

as well as the process is stronger. , the bipolar montage is much more

difficult to use

because of the EEG excitability cycle effect, and small EEG amplitudes do not

mean less EEG

frequency power. When one is working with EEG, one should always always take

into

consideration that the EEG signal represents the excitatory/inhibitory cycle of

nerve cells.

All the best,

-------

Prof.Dr. Alvoeiro,Ph.D.(Hull,UK),C.Psychol.(BPS,UK)

2000-119 Santarem,

Portugal

E-mail: jorge.alvoeiro@...

http://cienciacognitiva.planetaclix.pt/

________________________________

From: on behalf of

Sent: Tue 08-12-2009 21:36

Subject: Re: Re: T3/T4 bipolar - what does it do?

Pete,

Rob Coben has reported that he trains beta up in bipolar training. He bases his

training on QEEG and will train up a band if there is hypercoherence. The

results he presented at iSNR a couple years ago showed small increases in the

amplitude of the band trained along with decrease in coherence in that same

band. He does also use many other training methods including both nirHEG and

pirHEG.

georgemartin@...

www.northstarneurofeedback.com <http://www.northstarneurofeedback.com/>

On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Van Deusen wrote:

,

I hope you are speaking hypothetically when you talk about traiing up beta or

high beta in a bipolar montage. That would generally be a very bad idea. I

have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis " changing the shape of the

arousal curve " . But the traditional use of these protocols is to squash all

frequencies and train up a band starting (initially) with 12-15 Hz (now often

much lower than that) and keep moving that band down, searching for the " sweet

spot " where the client feels a release. I've ended up getting, I think, 6 folks

referred to me who had been trained to reward beta and high-beta, and generally

the results were not pretty.

In practical terms, as I was trying to say in my email, though perhaps not

bluntly enough, I haven't the foggiest idea what the effect of this approach is

supposed to be except " good " . It is a recipe approach that is used for all

clients with all kinds of problems, often without any idea what the brain is

actually doing in terms of activation patterns, and it is reputed, by those who

are believers, to cure all ills--unless it doesn't.

When you train in any EEG channel, you take the signal at the active electrode

and subtract from it the signal at the reference electrode. Hence, in

simplified terms, if there are 15u of theta at T4 and 13u of theta at T3, then

you will see 2 Hz as your training signal. It doesn't matter whether you are

training slow or fast frequencies, training them up or down, all you are telling

the brain to change is the difference between the two. Of course it's not that

simple because the signals are each viewable as oscillating waveforms, so

sometimes one will be peaking while the other is bottoming, etc. It's (in most

software) the peak-to-peak value of the difference between the two waveforms in

that frequency band.

Certainly the Othmers presented the notion that if you produced a " negative "

effect with a particular training, then you just train a different frequency to

" reverse " it. Again, with reference to the cases that ended up coming to me,

lots of " reversing " had been tried to no effect. It's kind of like saying, " if

I hit someone over the head with a baseball bat and they don't like it, what

shall I hit them with to make them feel better? "

If the Othmers, in all their years of teaching this approach, were never really

able to present what I felt was a very cogent explanation of what it was doing

(in fact they presented many, but they kept changing), I would not have any hope

of trying to do so. I don't use their approach and haven't since the mid-90's

when they were teaching over/under/unstable arousal, which did make some sense

to me. Hopefully there are others on the list who are more versed in this

approach who can answer your questions better than I.

If, as I infer from your email, either you or someone you know has been trained

with this approach and has had unpleasant results that are not necessarily going

away, then my recommendation would be to stop doing it. If you can get an

assessment or QEEG done to look at what your brain is currently doing, then it's

possible you can get some recommendations on how to move it in a better

direction. I did have good success with the 6 clients I worked with, but it

wasn't using bipolar montages, and it wasn't an immediate quick fix.

Pete

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlc@...

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

USA 305 433 3160

BR 47 3346 6235

The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. But in practical terms, what does doing this type

of training intend to effect in terms of symptoms? My experience is that when

higher beta frequencies were rewarded it " changed the slope of the arousal

curve " to be more steep, possibly increasingly so (although I'm not sure

exponentially). Thus, following that training sensory stimulation and emotional

material caused a ramp up in mood/stimulation feeling much quicker than it had

before - creating the effect of mood instability and general hyperexcitability.

The opposite was true for rewarding lower frequencies. Is that what's suppose to

happen?

And I'm not sure what " training the difference means " . Can you give an

example? ie. Lets say you are using that protocol and you reward 18-21hz, you

are saying the " difference " between the two sites. I understand " difference " in

the absolute sense as in if one site is 15hz and one is 12hz, the difference is

3hz, but how does the reward frequency play into it here?

Also maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if someone trained using

that procotol and the effect was undersirable (severe overarousal/increased

vigilence or the opposite) whats the " normal " range of frequencies to reward to

get someone back to " normal " . What is desirable here?

Also maybe you explained this in your explanation and I just missed this, but

what effects would you expect the protocol to have on the rest of the cortex? ie

Does training " up " into the beta/high beta range at T3/T4 tend to promote beta,

or a more rapid shift to beta, in general across the cortex (ie the frontal

lobes)? Or just the temporal lobes? Am I just not thinking of this correctly?

thanks

>

> > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to

> > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at these

> > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would the

> > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up in

> > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects mainly

> > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > global shifting?

> >

> > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of what

it

> > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and in

> > the EEG.

> >

>

--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net!

<http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html> ---

December 8, 2009

Hi ,

Thanks again for the response. Comments in line...

> > >

> > > > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to

> > > > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at

> > these

> > > > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would

> > the

> > > > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up

> > in

> > > > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects

> > mainly

> > > > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > > > global shifting?

> > > >

> > > > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > > > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of

> > what it

> > > > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and

> > in

> > > > the EEG.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

December 8, 2009

Hi ,

I've been following this thread with interest.

A few quick questions if you don't mind:

1) At this point, is your priority understanding what occured with the prior training, or commencing with some training that will help you feel/function better now?

2) Are you equipped for hometraining?

3) Where are you located?

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

Hi ,Thanks again for the response. Comments in line...> > >> > > > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to> > > > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at> > these> > > > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would> > the> > > > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up> > in> > > > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects> > mainly> > > > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a> > > > global shifting?> > > >> > > > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong> > > > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of> > what it> > > > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and> > in> > > > the EEG.> > > >> > >> >> > > >>

December 10, 2009

Hi ,

I am located in Michigan - I have emailed you backchanel...

> > > >

> > > > > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain

to

> > > > > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at

> > > these

> > > > > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would

> > > the

> > > > > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up

> > > in

> > > > > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects

> > > mainly

> > > > > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > > > > global shifting?

> > > > >

> > > > > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > > > > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of

> > > what it

> > > > > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and

> > > in

> > > > > the EEG.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

December 14, 2009

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...

I did have good success with the 6

> clients I worked with, but it wasn't using bipolar montages, and it wasn't

> an immediate quick fix.

>

> Pete

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

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

> USA 305 433 3160

> BR 47 3346 6235

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > Thanks for the explanation. But in practical terms, what does doing this

> > type of training intend to effect in terms of symptoms? My experience is

> > that when higher beta frequencies were rewarded it " changed the slope of the

> > arousal curve " to be more steep, possibly increasingly so (although I'm not

> > sure exponentially). Thus, following that training sensory stimulation and

> > emotional material caused a ramp up in mood/stimulation feeling much quicker

> > than it had before - creating the effect of mood instability and general

> > hyperexcitability. The opposite was true for rewarding lower frequencies. Is

> > that what's suppose to happen?

> >

> > And I'm not sure what " training the difference means " . Can you give an

> > example? ie. Lets say you are using that protocol and you reward 18-21hz,

> > you are saying the " difference " between the two sites. I understand

> > " difference " in the absolute sense as in if one site is 15hz and one is

> > 12hz, the difference is 3hz, but how does the reward frequency play into it

> > here?

> >

> > Also maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if someone trained

> > using that procotol and the effect was undersirable (severe

> > overarousal/increased vigilence or the opposite) whats the " normal " range of

> > frequencies to reward to get someone back to " normal " . What is desirable

> > here?

> >

> > Also maybe you explained this in your explanation and I just missed this,

> > but what effects would you expect the protocol to have on the rest of the

> > cortex? ie Does training " up " into the beta/high beta range at T3/T4 tend to

> > promote beta, or a more rapid shift to beta, in general across the cortex

> > (ie the frontal lobes)? Or just the temporal lobes? Am I just not thinking

> > of this correctly?

> >

> > thanks

> >

> > >

> > > > I apologize if this has been covered before. But can someone explain to

> > > > me what this protocol does? It seems many NF practitioners start at

> > these

> > > > sites and work up or down to see how the patient responds. What would

> > the

> > > > expected effect in symptoms and in the QEEG or TLC be when working up

> > in

> > > > frequencies using this location? Working down? Does it have effects

> > mainly

> > > > at the temporal lobes (where its placed) or do the effects come from a

> > > > global shifting?

> > > >

> > > > This protocol was used on me in the past and I had some pretty strong

> > > > reactions to it. I have never though, seen a thorough explanation of

> > what it

> > > > is intending on doing and how that is expressed as far as symptoms and

> > in

> > > > the EEG.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

December 14, 2009

I did assessments of each, as I always do. In some cases it was training down 23-38 in various places. I trained monopolar montages, so I had an idea what was happening.-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...

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

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:34 AM, arosenbl0 <arosenbl0@...> wrote:

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...

December 28, 2009

This might sound like an odd question, but is it really possible to fix the

problems caused by T3/T4 bipolar training without going back and rewarding a

more reasonable frequency at that site set? I ask because in the past I have

inquired about this problem and people clearly wear their aversion to this

protocol on their sleeves and recommend a different protocol/site that is

" safer " . That might be well and good if you are starting from scratch- but thats

not whats going on. I got here by shifting T3/T4 up and down... Intuitively it

seems to be that if T3/T4 acts like a volume nob on the " arousal " center of the

brain - why wouldn't you fix " too loud " by training back towards the middle?

I guess what I am saying is - there is a difference between saying you'd never

do a protocol on principle and dealing with someone who has the effects of

training with it too high (hyperarousal) that aren't going away. The " set

point " was set to high. Consistency in that model for that site would say find

the " sweet spot " - right? Not too high but not too low. Can that " set point "

really be shifted back to normal by ignoring T3/T4 and doing something else?

thanks

>

> >

> > 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...

> >

>

December 28, 2009