Guest guest Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Noel How low can you go with Bioexplorer and Pendant? I thought the lowest setting was 0.1Hz. The Othmers claim a low setting of 0.00001Hz for reward frequency. Angelo Othmer Protocol guide Hi Tak, I have three EEG Pendents I use at work and I do low frequency training. I have been doing this for some years and how found, thanks to my friend Bilgin, that the Othmers have been able to express their training in understandable forms. So, yes, it has added to my practice of nfb and the Pendent is just as good as their nueroamp. Noel ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Encouraged by Noel's successful training, I thought a bit more and modified my opinion slightly. I remember having had understood some more of it months ago already ... but I don't know how close to reality my view is. Here is my reasoning regarding the center frequency, just from intuition (and with some education in physics), also regarding Angelo's question. If I understand correctly, in the Othmer's approach, the " reward frequency " is not meant a frequency to be rewarded. It is rather meant a *center* frequency to be rewarded. That means in my understanding that by moving to a very low desired center frequency, all frequencies (i. e. the activity in those frequencies) above that center frequency are trained down. If the center frequency is close to zero, this would mean some kind of reset (in all frequencies) of that part of the brain which influences what we measure in that location and in its reference. A softer way to reach the reward center frequency (rather than exclusively rewarding the very low desired reward center frequency) might be to train down the present center frequency with adaptively lowering the thresholds. I would be curious to know if this can be done in the Othmer's approach, or if slowly training down the present center frequency can have any disadvantages. Here, I could imagine that the frequencies lower than the threshold might be trained up sometimes rather than the higher *and* lower frequencies trained down. So, if that is the case (I am not sure), only rewarding a very low center frequency might be a better choice, but the reward will probably be received only during a very, very small percentage of the time. Intuitively I guess, training down the center frequency will be stricter than training down all activity using a full squash, since in full squash the brain has so much choice how to move down the activity to get the rewards (which is a good thing in my opinion, and I understand that Pete also likes the brain to have choices how to reach a goal). At least, it has those choices as long as the threshold is high enough, i.e., not already close to zero. Another kind of full squash, in my intuition similarly strict as training down the center frequency, would consist of training down many very small frequency bands (overlapping each other to build the whole frequency band to be trained down), and *all* of those small ones would have to be below a certain threshold to produce the reward, not leaving so much choice to the brain. However, the disadvantage of the small frequency bands are the huge time delays caused in the filters. So, training down the center frequency, or training to reach a very low center frequency, might be a better choice. (I haven't tried it yet, but I will make some experiments with my own brain as soon as possible, encouraged by Noel's message.) Intuitively, I even think that training down the center frequency might train down the fast frequencies easier than in a full squash, since those frequencies are farther away from the desired center frequency. Training down the center frequency, or rewarding only a very low goal center frequency (if I understand everything correctly) might be a good supplement to the TLC training, as far as they are used as an alternative to the full squashes. Still, in my opinion, the Othmer's approach as such (at least as far I see it in my limited and maybe wrong view) seems not to be a satisfying approach to me since they seem to only train locations based on symptoms rather than also taking the whole brain into account, and they only seem to train everything down. But combined with TLC, it might be a useful technique whenever full squashes for training down everything would be used otherwise. Furthermore, in my intuition, it will be of course more effective to use lower center frequencies than higher ones, so that there will be nothing left which is lower than the center frequency. However, I don't understand why such a small difference like 0.1-0.00001 should make such a difference in training. Intuitively, I guess, rewarding the lowest center frequency possible with the equipment available will just do it. Even more if training down the present reward frequency with decreasing thresholds (in case such a training would be reasonable). In that case, how low the goal center frequency is set, will make no difference at all until the bottom is reached by the brain. The difference is just in the bottom, and only in case it is actually reached. Since 0.1 Hz is such a small difference (it is just 1 beat in 10 seconds), intuitively, I don't see how this could make a difference at all ... Is it better to only get rewards for the center frequency being below 0.00001 than also for the ones between 0.00001 and 0.1? One reason for a difference I can imagine might be the worry that the frequency band between 0 and the very low center frequency (0.1 or even smaller) might be trained up a bit. Is that what the Othmers try to prevent? With full squashes, we have that risk too, that activity moves to frequencies which will not be trained down. It might even be smaller with squashes than with the center frequency training, just from my intuition. Anyway, I will try training the lowest possible center frequencies for my own brain, as an alternative to full squashes, at least if there are no objections from you all ... In my opinion, we can otherwise also just use the good old full squashes with our good old equipment, just setting a fixed threshold very close to zero. This might be as good (or nearly as good?) as training to reach a very low fixed center frequency. I am doing this already for squishes or full squashes with duration=0 (instant reaction, you hear a very short grand piano tone once in a while), and in combination with two more easier thresholds in the same session, one with a longer duration, another one with an additional average period, all to be trained down at the same time in one location, with 3 audio outputs fitting nicely together. My impression is that the easier ones motivate and facilitate my brain to also achieve the stronger goals. I can imagine that this principle might also work with training center frequencies (i. e. one stronger goal is to reach a very low fixed center frequency, another easier goal is, at the same time, to decrease the currently present center frequency with decreasing thresholds, e.g., automatic ones). I would be happy about any corrections of my view. Kind regards, love_spelt female computer scientist > > Noel > How low can you go with Bioexplorer and Pendant? I thought the lowest > setting was 0.1Hz. The Othmers claim a low setting of 0.00001Hz for reward > frequency. > Angelo > > Othmer Protocol guide > > Hi Tak, > I have three EEG Pendents I use at work and I do low frequency training. I > have been doing this for some years and how found, thanks to my friend > Bilgin, that the Othmers have been able to express their training in > understandable forms. So, yes, it has added to my practice of nfb and the > Pendent is just as good as their nueroamp. > > Noel > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Thanks everyone for your feedback. I have to admit that I had not been aware of this " ultra low frequency training " thing until it was mentioned earlier in this thread, and I just saw another recent thread about it. I asked about the Othmar's book because I was curious about the protocols she had developed, not because I was already aware of/interested in that ultra low frequency training thing. I am glad to hear many opinions from people here - they were all very helpful. I just don't want this thread to become another You-Are-Wrong-I-Am-Right-No-You-Know-Nothing spiral -Tak > > Noel > How low can you go with Bioexplorer and Pendant? I thought the lowest > setting was 0.1Hz. The Othmers claim a low setting of 0.00001Hz for reward > frequency. > Angelo > > Othmer Protocol guide > > Hi Tak, > I have three EEG Pendents I use at work and I do low frequency training. I > have been doing this for some years and how found, thanks to my friend > Bilgin, that the Othmers have been able to express their training in > understandable forms. So, yes, it has added to my practice of nfb and the > Pendent is just as good as their nueroamp. > > Noel > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 I view the Othmer approach as positng the inhibiting of the EEG and rewarding/training slow cortical potentials. I have doubts that given the time span and range .001 to ....? of the slow oscilation that it can be trained. Would the same anecdotal results be obtained by multiple EEG band inhibits only. Mark Othmer Protocol guide> > Hi Tak, > I have three EEG Pendents I use at work and I do low frequency training. I> have been doing this for some years and how found, thanks to my friend> Bilgin, that the Othmers have been able to express their training in> understandable forms. So, yes, it has added to my practice of nfb and the> Pendent is just as good as their nueroamp.> > Noel> > > > ------------------------------------> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Angelo, yes, the EEG Pendant does go to 0.1 H, so true Othmer Infra low training is not going to be too true. It still works though. A centre frequency of 0.1 would not be attainable using the Pendant, I use 0-2 Hz for children and 2-5 Hz (+ or - according to clients individual needs) so the 0.1 Hz limit doesn't really limit my training.As Mark says, a series of inhibits might work just as well... I believe sometimes that it might, however, we do need to do some experiments to determine this. From a practical angle, I am still learning, the T4-Fp2 approach is not suitable for every client (though I find it better tolerated than C4 SMR). This is what makes nfb so difficult to learn and apply - there are no quick recipes to fit all needs. The Othmer approach is the closest, but is it really?RegardsNoel EastwoodPsychologistCanberra, Australiawww.nenfb.comBioexplorer Training videos:- Creating your own Basic Protocols in Bioexplorer, Getting started in Bioexplorer, Running and Screening Your Session in Bioexplorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 I believe you also need to check the limits of Bioexplorer. Jeff From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Noel Eastwood Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:58 PM Subject: Re: Othmer Protocol guide Angelo, yes, the EEG Pendant does go to 0.1 H, so true Othmer Infra low training is not going to be too true. It still works though. A centre frequency of 0.1 would not be attainable using the Pendant, I use 0-2 Hz for children and 2-5 Hz (+ or - according to clients individual needs) so the 0.1 Hz limit doesn't really limit my training. As Mark says, a series of inhibits might work just as well... I believe sometimes that it might, however, we do need to do some experiments to determine this. From a practical angle, I am still learning, the T4-Fp2 approach is not suitable for every client (though I find it better tolerated than C4 SMR). This is what makes nfb so difficult to learn and apply - there are no quick recipes to fit all needs. The Othmer approach is the closest, but is it really? Regards Noel Eastwood Psychologist Canberra, Australia www.nenfb.com Bioexplorer Training videos:- Creating your own Basic Protocols in Bioexplorer, Getting started in Bioexplorer, Running and Screening Your Session in Bioexplorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 And while your at it also check the limits of the signal analysis the Othmer's describe. " This is from his own descriptions. He leaves out the detection/rectification and slow-averaging that'd give " amplitude of a slow wave " . " (From a conversation between Lenny Grey and Hershel Toomin) So aside from the problem of the math of signal detection being able to account for giving accurate feedback with in the time frame that some one is in your office, the desighn of the signal processing is also set up to not identify amplitudes such as are being discused. Bruce > > I believe you also need to check the limits of Bioexplorer. Jeff > > > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On > Behalf Of Noel Eastwood > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:58 PM > > Subject: Re: Othmer Protocol guide > > > > > > > Angelo, yes, the EEG Pendant does go to 0.1 H, so true Othmer Infra low > training is not going to be too true. It still works though. A centre > frequency of 0.1 would not be attainable using the Pendant, I use 0-2 Hz for > children and 2-5 Hz (+ or - according to clients individual needs) so the > 0.1 Hz limit doesn't really limit my training. > As Mark says, a series of inhibits might work just as well... I believe > sometimes that it might, however, we do need to do some experiments to > determine this. > From a practical angle, I am still learning, the T4-Fp2 approach is not > suitable for every client (though I find it better tolerated than C4 SMR). > This is what makes nfb so difficult to learn and apply - there are no quick > recipes to fit all needs. The Othmer approach is the closest, but is it > really? > > Regards > Noel Eastwood > Psychologist > Canberra, Australia > www.nenfb.com > Bioexplorer Training videos:- Creating your own Basic Protocols in > Bioexplorer, Getting started in Bioexplorer, Running and Screening Your > Session in Bioexplorer > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Hi, Can somebody give me a very short synopsis of this infra low freq training ? (backchannel if necessary) Whether they use filters ? rewards / inhibits ? I am not getting , how one can train at so slow a speed ? Thanks. Devidas > > I believe you also need to check the limits of Bioexplorer. Jeff > > > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On > Behalf Of Noel Eastwood > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:58 PM > > Subject: Re: Othmer Protocol guide > > > > > > > Angelo, yes, the EEG Pendant does go to 0.1 H, so true Othmer Infra low > training is not going to be too true. It still works though. A centre > frequency of 0.1 would not be attainable using the Pendant, I use 0-2 Hz for > children and 2-5 Hz (+ or - according to clients individual needs) so the > 0.1 Hz limit doesn't really limit my training. > As Mark says, a series of inhibits might work just as well... I believe > sometimes that it might, however, we do need to do some experiments to > determine this. > From a practical angle, I am still learning, the T4-Fp2 approach is not > suitable for every client (though I find it better tolerated than C4 SMR). > This is what makes nfb so difficult to learn and apply - there are no quick > recipes to fit all needs. The Othmer approach is the closest, but is it > really? > > Regards > Noel Eastwood > Psychologist > Canberra, Australia > www.nenfb.com > Bioexplorer Training videos:- Creating your own Basic Protocols in > Bioexplorer, Getting started in Bioexplorer, Running and Screening Your > Session in Bioexplorer > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.