Z-score training

[Guest guest]

One of my favorite threads in the decades-long discussion of neurofeedback on the internet has been the one that says that there is something that works for everyone every time, that it works faster and better and basically obsoletes all other approaches.  I guess the first one I was aware of was Mike Tansey's 14 Hz training, but since then there have been probably a dozen--and perhaps more, since I'm not always paying close attention to that particular song.

In the past 6 months I've learned that HEG (either nIR or pIR) work so well with everyone, and get so much faster results and are so much easier, that the idea of buying and learning to use neurofeedback equipment is foolish.  I've been using HEG for a decade at least, pretty much since nIR first came out, and it surely is a great tool.  I use it with most my clients as a warm-up for NF based on their brain patterns, and I wouldn't bother with that if I didn't think it was valuable.  And I often recommend it alone to home-based trainers, because it IS easy to learn and fast to set up and it can be quite effective over time--but I notice that many of them come back later and get some EEG training going as well.

I have never bought and used a ROSHI or pROSHI, though I work with lots of trainers who have them and love them.  I'm not connected with any who have thrown away their NF equipment and just use this device, in spite of the marvelous stories I see from time to time posted on one or another group.  I never bought one myself, as Chuck probably recalls, since every time I used one at FutureHealth I got a whopping headache--proof, he explained, that I needed to use one regularly.

I got an Atlantis when they first came out, but I did resist the significant expense involved in having to do a NeuroGuide mini-Q or something more costly in order to be able to do Z-score training.  I was in touch with too many people who, like Jeff, had experienced what seems to be true of most of these technologies:  when it works, it's great, but when it doesn't...   I'm glad to hear Merlyn's reports, as I have heard others (including from Jeff about 6 months back) about cases that responded well to it and got better faster.  Glad to hear that there are case studies in NeuroConnections--generally, of course, single case studies are chosen to demonstrate successes with an approach.  It will be very interesting, as Jay notes, to see someone actually do a nice controlled comparison of 10-15 clients using z-score and another matched group using traditional NF to compare a) the speed of changes and degree of success (percent who respond); the comparative cost of the two trainings to the client; and c) the follow-up results over time.  Love to see that for HEG.  Love to see that for pROSHI.

I'm not against or putting down any of these approaches.  I thought the comments I posted from Jay were very on target and didn't in any way put down the option of Z-score training.  My approach is probably old-fashioned and overly dependent on the trainer, since I like to look for the patterns in the brain, try to identify those which seem to underlie the problems the client wants to change and test to see which ones work best for that individual.  The trainer doesn't need a Q to do that, so it's pretty cost-effective, and it seems to work pretty well with a lot of clients.  Most important to me, when it doesn't work, I learn something from it, because I know what I tried and why I tried it.

Hopefully we can let this topic rest for a while as others have suggested.Pete

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

The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Experience with the pRoshi has shown that it should (must) be used with neurofeedback, for instance 4 channel alpha coherence. When used with neurofeedback it is very effective. This should alleviate any previous issues that you may have encountered. I highly recommend trying it in combo.

Nick

From: pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...>Braintrainer List < >Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 10:35:33 AMSubject: Z-score training

One of my favorite threads in the decades-long discussion of neurofeedback on the internet has been the one that says that there is something that works for everyone every time, that it works faster and better and basically obsoletes all other approaches. I guess the first one I was aware of was Mike Tansey's 14 Hz training, but since then there have been probably a dozen--and perhaps more, since I'm not always paying close attention to that particular song.In the past 6 months I've learned that HEG (either nIR or pIR) work so well with everyone, and get so much faster results and are so much easier, that the idea of buying and learning to use neurofeedback equipment is foolish. I've been using HEG for a decade at least, pretty much since nIR first came out, and it surely is a great tool. I use it with most my clients as a warm-up for NF based on their brain patterns, and I wouldn't bother with that if I didn't think it was

valuable. And I often recommend it alone to home-based trainers, because it IS easy to learn and fast to set up and it can be quite effective over time--but I notice that many of them come back later and get some EEG training going as well.I have never bought and used a ROSHI or pROSHI, though I work with lots of trainers who have them and love them. I'm not connected with any who have thrown away their NF equipment and just use this device, in spite of the marvelous stories I see from time to time posted on one or another group. I never bought one myself, as Chuck probably recalls, since every time I used one at FutureHealth I got a whopping headache--proof, he explained, that I needed to use one regularly.I got an Atlantis when they first came out, but I did resist the significant expense involved in having to do a NeuroGuide mini-Q or something more costly in order to be able to do Z-score training. I was in

touch with too many people who, like Jeff, had experienced what seems to be true of most of these technologies: when it works, it's great, but when it doesn't... I'm glad to hear Merlyn's reports, as I have heard others (including from Jeff about 6 months back) about cases that responded well to it and got better faster. Glad to hear that there are case studies in NeuroConnections- -generally, of course, single case studies are chosen to demonstrate successes with an approach. It will be very interesting, as Jay notes, to see someone actually do a nice controlled comparison of 10-15 clients using z-score and another matched group using traditional NF to compare a) the speed of changes and degree of success (percent who respond); the comparative cost of the two trainings to the client; and c) the follow-up results over time. Love to see that for HEG. Love to see that for pROSHI.I'm not against or

putting down any of these approaches. I thought the comments I posted from Jay were very on target and didn't in any way put down the option of Z-score training. My approach is probably old-fashioned and overly dependent on the trainer, since I like to look for the patterns in the brain, try to identify those which seem to underlie the problems the client wants to change and test to see which ones work best for that individual. The trainer doesn't need a Q to do that, so it's pretty cost-effective, and it seems to work pretty well with a lot of clients. Most important to me, when it doesn't work, I learn something from it, because I know what I tried and why I tried it.Hopefully we can let this topic rest for a while as others have suggested.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmail (DOT)

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