Re: Sleep Deprivation and Drowsiness

[Guest guest]



JD, Since getting my own QEEG a few years back which showed extremely high theta/beta at CZ which was not collaborated by any of my mini Q's or training data, I had wondered about the effects of drowsiness as one of many factors that can not only effect the results of QEEG but also our own training data and mini Q's. I juxtapose such observations with Pete's own teachings about the problem with comparing training data across sessions, looking for trends and instead focusing on within session starting points for shareholding and with the inconsistent results on demonstrating learning curves by the research in this field.

Recently I have attempted to train down 8-11 hz at CZ based in part on my own QEEG and have found that my baseline during a 30 second eyes closed can be any where from 3.0 to 6 uv's. For the most part my intra session values during training go down. However, my base line reading post session is some times much higher than pre session.

In other words there are many confounding valuable here. One is the drowsiness you speak of from not getting enough sleep, The other is the effects of the training which, at least in my case appears to be causing a rebound in alpha, probably from some type of fatigue like dynamic.

Another confounding valuable is bio rhythms and circadian rhythms. Dietary factors both long an short term probably also effect QEEG measurements..

Another very big factor in terms of training based on QEEG and even mini Q involves when during the closing or opening of the eyes such measurements are being used to come up with the norms. I believe this is called data sampling. So for example. In collecting QEEG data on an individual, the value of alpha will change radically based on how soon it is being measured just after closing eyes and this change in values based on the task of closing eyes will vary among individuals.

I think some on the QEEG field have minimized such influences and the dilemma they pose for training.

In addition to Pete's mini Q I have done multiple Swingle mini Q's on my self. The swingle mini Q showed a deficient alpha response to eyes closing at CZ while the QEEG showed to much alpha at CZ with eyes closed. Training CZ down with eyes closed based on the QEEG could be at odds with the training based on the swingle mini Q. They are measuring different aspects of brain functioning. One way out of that might be training down CZ with eyes closed only after eyes have been closed for a while so as not to further reduce the alpha response dynamic shortly after closing ones eyes. However it would be far easier to take into account the various valuables one must consider if one had information about when during the data sampling into the state change of (eyes open, eyes closed or task, etc) the data was being taken that is being used in getting the norms.

Where even in the mention of QEEG data collection and research is such discussion.

I do realize that training within in the confines of just one approach such as the TLC or Swingles would keep one from having to consider some but not all of the coufounds that JD and I have raised

Bruce Z Berman

Sleep Deprivation and Drowsiness

In clinical practice it is very common to see clients who are in a state of drowsiness or sleep deprivation, it’s the nature of our modern fast paced society, and we need to be aware of how severely this can affect our assessments and training. The following are some clinical observations that highlight this concern.

Some of my recent observations brought this topic to the forefront as I was experimenting with developing and testing out a manual, Swingle’s Assessment of 5 sites (Cz, O1, F3, F4, Fz) that I have been working on for my personal use. I did an initial assessment on my grandson and got good results. Eight days later, I tried to do another assessment only to discover that my grandson had only 3 ½ hours of sleep the night before, and I was trying to collect the data in the late evening when he was acutely sleep deprived. Even with short, 60 second data collection sessions, he was nodding off almost immediately and it was obviously affecting the raw EEG, so I used tapping every 10 seconds during the sessions to try and keep him awake and alert during the EEG acquisition. Even though I knew from the onset that we were collecting poor data, I went through the process anyway, because I had already prepared all of the sites. The following are just some of my observations when compared to the initial assessment.

· Alpha Response (% change from EC to EO). In the initial assessment at Cz the alpha response was 36.48%, within the normative range (> 30%), and the alpha response at O1 was 163.53% a state of being potentially creative and artistic. When sleep deprived, Cz was 22.38% (less than normal) and O1 was 6.17% (much less than normal, > 50%, and similar to being in a state of emotional abuse).

· The Theta/Beta ratios at Cz and most other sites went from within normal limits to being significantly out of normal range.

· Theta/SMR and Theta/Alpha ratios as well as F3-F4 asymmetries were negatively affected and many were out of normal range.

Several days later, in an attempt to avoid the sleep deprivation I had him take a long nap (2 hours plus). He was up for ½ an hour, he refreshed himself and drank some cold water. Days earlier, he had stopped taking his supplements that his parents were having him take to improve his ability to focus and attend in school and help him with his asthma.

· When he was drowsy, after his nap, his Alpha Responses (Cz, O1) were within normal limits, but not near as high when he was more alert.

· Most of his T/B, T/SMR, and T/A ratios were out of normal range.

· And his PAF’s were below normal (> 9.5 Hz), i.e., Cz - 9.31 Hz, O1 - 9.19 Hz.

I was concerned that the drowsy state or stopping of his supplements may have caused the drop in his PAFs. Later that night we did a 20 minute training session at Cz, followed by a 60 seconds assessment and then followed by a 30 second assessment. I was delighted to see his PAF for 20 minute session was up to normal.

· 20 minute training session his PAF was at 9.98 Hz a noticeable improvement from the assessment 4 hours earlier when it was below normal because of drowsiness

· 60 second assessment the PAF was 9.83 Hz

· 30 second assessment the PAF was 9.55 Hz

I haven’t gone into all the details, but it is easy to see that sleep deprivation and drowsiness can very seriously affect our assessments and training. The stopping of the supplements didn’t seem to affect the assessments, but drowsiness and sleep deprivation, certainly did. Most notably, sleep deprivation and drowsiness seemed to be the major contributors to the negative outcomes. EEG assessments should not be done when clients are fatigued, tired, sleep deprived, or drowsy – RESCHEDULE !! Otherwise you get data that is very highly unreliable. I certainly would not want to be trained with protocols that were developed from a drowsy or sleep deprived state. We need to teach our clients how important sleep is, especially if we want to be successful in assessing and training.

I wonder if drowsiness is the major factor that affects data from session to session?

Best Regards,

JD Elder

[Guest guest]



JD, Since getting my own QEEG a few years back which showed extremely high theta/beta at CZ which was not collaborated by any of my mini Q's or training data, I had wondered about the effects of drowsiness as one of many factors that can not only effect the results of QEEG but also our own training data and mini Q's. I juxtapose such observations with Pete's own teachings about the problem with comparing training data across sessions, looking for trends and instead focusing on within session starting points for shareholding and with the inconsistent results on demonstrating learning curves by the research in this field.

Recently I have attempted to train down 8-11 hz at CZ based in part on my own QEEG and have found that my baseline during a 30 second eyes closed can be any where from 3.0 to 6 uv's. For the most part my intra session values during training go down. However, my base line reading post session is some times much higher than pre session.

In other words there are many confounding valuable here. One is the drowsiness you speak of from not getting enough sleep, The other is the effects of the training which, at least in my case appears to be causing a rebound in alpha, probably from some type of fatigue like dynamic.

Another confounding valuable is bio rhythms and circadian rhythms. Dietary factors both long an short term probably also effect QEEG measurements..

Another very big factor in terms of training based on QEEG and even mini Q involves when during the closing or opening of the eyes such measurements are being used to come up with the norms. I believe this is called data sampling. So for example. In collecting QEEG data on an individual, the value of alpha will change radically based on how soon it is being measured just after closing eyes and this change in values based on the task of closing eyes will vary among individuals.

I think some on the QEEG field have minimized such influences and the dilemma they pose for training.

In addition to Pete's mini Q I have done multiple Swingle mini Q's on my self. The swingle mini Q showed a deficient alpha response to eyes closing at CZ while the QEEG showed to much alpha at CZ with eyes closed. Training CZ down with eyes closed based on the QEEG could be at odds with the training based on the swingle mini Q. They are measuring different aspects of brain functioning. One way out of that might be training down CZ with eyes closed only after eyes have been closed for a while so as not to further reduce the alpha response dynamic shortly after closing ones eyes. However it would be far easier to take into account the various valuables one must consider if one had information about when during the data sampling into the state change of (eyes open, eyes closed or task, etc) the data was being taken that is being used in getting the norms.

Where even in the mention of QEEG data collection and research is such discussion.

I do realize that training within in the confines of just one approach such as the TLC or Swingles would keep one from having to consider some but not all of the coufounds that JD and I have raised

Bruce Z Berman

Sleep Deprivation and Drowsiness

In clinical practice it is very common to see clients who are in a state of drowsiness or sleep deprivation, it’s the nature of our modern fast paced society, and we need to be aware of how severely this can affect our assessments and training. The following are some clinical observations that highlight this concern.

Some of my recent observations brought this topic to the forefront as I was experimenting with developing and testing out a manual, Swingle’s Assessment of 5 sites (Cz, O1, F3, F4, Fz) that I have been working on for my personal use. I did an initial assessment on my grandson and got good results. Eight days later, I tried to do another assessment only to discover that my grandson had only 3 ½ hours of sleep the night before, and I was trying to collect the data in the late evening when he was acutely sleep deprived. Even with short, 60 second data collection sessions, he was nodding off almost immediately and it was obviously affecting the raw EEG, so I used tapping every 10 seconds during the sessions to try and keep him awake and alert during the EEG acquisition. Even though I knew from the onset that we were collecting poor data, I went through the process anyway, because I had already prepared all of the sites. The following are just some of my observations when compared to the initial assessment.

· Alpha Response (% change from EC to EO). In the initial assessment at Cz the alpha response was 36.48%, within the normative range (> 30%), and the alpha response at O1 was 163.53% a state of being potentially creative and artistic. When sleep deprived, Cz was 22.38% (less than normal) and O1 was 6.17% (much less than normal, > 50%, and similar to being in a state of emotional abuse).

· The Theta/Beta ratios at Cz and most other sites went from within normal limits to being significantly out of normal range.

· Theta/SMR and Theta/Alpha ratios as well as F3-F4 asymmetries were negatively affected and many were out of normal range.

Several days later, in an attempt to avoid the sleep deprivation I had him take a long nap (2 hours plus). He was up for ½ an hour, he refreshed himself and drank some cold water. Days earlier, he had stopped taking his supplements that his parents were having him take to improve his ability to focus and attend in school and help him with his asthma.

· When he was drowsy, after his nap, his Alpha Responses (Cz, O1) were within normal limits, but not near as high when he was more alert.

· Most of his T/B, T/SMR, and T/A ratios were out of normal range.

· And his PAF’s were below normal (> 9.5 Hz), i.e., Cz - 9.31 Hz, O1 - 9.19 Hz.

I was concerned that the drowsy state or stopping of his supplements may have caused the drop in his PAFs. Later that night we did a 20 minute training session at Cz, followed by a 60 seconds assessment and then followed by a 30 second assessment. I was delighted to see his PAF for 20 minute session was up to normal.

· 20 minute training session his PAF was at 9.98 Hz a noticeable improvement from the assessment 4 hours earlier when it was below normal because of drowsiness

· 60 second assessment the PAF was 9.83 Hz

· 30 second assessment the PAF was 9.55 Hz

I haven’t gone into all the details, but it is easy to see that sleep deprivation and drowsiness can very seriously affect our assessments and training. The stopping of the supplements didn’t seem to affect the assessments, but drowsiness and sleep deprivation, certainly did. Most notably, sleep deprivation and drowsiness seemed to be the major contributors to the negative outcomes. EEG assessments should not be done when clients are fatigued, tired, sleep deprived, or drowsy – RESCHEDULE !! Otherwise you get data that is very highly unreliable. I certainly would not want to be trained with protocols that were developed from a drowsy or sleep deprived state. We need to teach our clients how important sleep is, especially if we want to be successful in assessing and training.

I wonder if drowsiness is the major factor that affects data from session to session?

Best Regards,

JD Elder

[Guest guest]



Correction, replace "thresholding" for shareholding in the last sentence of the first paragraph below :-)

Sleep Deprivation and Drowsiness

In clinical practice it is very common to see clients who are in a state of drowsiness or sleep deprivation, it’s the nature of our modern fast paced society, and we need to be aware of how severely this can affect our assessments and training. The following are some clinical observations that highlight this concern.

Some of my recent observations brought this topic to the forefront as I was experimenting with developing and testing out a manual, Swingle’s Assessment of 5 sites (Cz, O1, F3, F4, Fz) that I have been working on for my personal use. I did an initial assessment on my grandson and got good results. Eight days later, I tried to do another assessment only to discover that my grandson had only 3 ½ hours of sleep the night before, and I was trying to collect the data in the late evening when he was acutely sleep deprived. Even with short, 60 second data collection sessions, he was nodding off almost immediately and it was obviously affecting the raw EEG, so I used tapping every 10 seconds during the sessions to try and keep him awake and alert during the EEG acquisition. Even though I knew from the onset that we were collecting poor data, I went through the process anyway, because I had already prepared all of the sites. The following are just some of my observations when compared to the initial assessment.

· Alpha Response (% change from EC to EO). In the initial assessment at Cz the alpha response was 36.48%, within the normative range (> 30%), and the alpha response at O1 was 163.53% a state of being potentially creative and artistic. When sleep deprived, Cz was 22.38% (less than normal) and O1 was 6.17% (much less than normal, > 50%, and similar to being in a state of emotional abuse).

· The Theta/Beta ratios at Cz and most other sites went from within normal limits to being significantly out of normal range.

· Theta/SMR and Theta/Alpha ratios as well as F3-F4 asymmetries were negatively affected and many were out of normal range.

Several days later, in an attempt to avoid the sleep deprivation I had him take a long nap (2 hours plus). He was up for ½ an hour, he refreshed himself and drank some cold water. Days earlier, he had stopped taking his supplements that his parents were having him take to improve his ability to focus and attend in school and help him with his asthma.

· When he was drowsy, after his nap, his Alpha Responses (Cz, O1) were within normal limits, but not near as high when he was more alert.

· Most of his T/B, T/SMR, and T/A ratios were out of normal range.

· And his PAF’s were below normal (> 9.5 Hz), i.e., Cz - 9.31 Hz, O1 - 9.19 Hz.

I was concerned that the drowsy state or stopping of his supplements may have caused the drop in his PAFs. Later that night we did a 20 minute training session at Cz, followed by a 60 seconds assessment and then followed by a 30 second assessment. I was delighted to see his PAF for 20 minute session was up to normal.

· 20 minute training session his PAF was at 9.98 Hz a noticeable improvement from the assessment 4 hours earlier when it was below normal because of drowsiness

· 60 second assessment the PAF was 9.83 Hz

· 30 second assessment the PAF was 9.55 Hz

I haven’t gone into all the details, but it is easy to see that sleep deprivation and drowsiness can very seriously affect our assessments and training. The stopping of the supplements didn’t seem to affect the assessments, but drowsiness and sleep deprivation, certainly did. Most notably, sleep deprivation and drowsiness seemed to be the major contributors to the negative outcomes. EEG assessments should not be done when clients are fatigued, tired, sleep deprived, or drowsy – RESCHEDULE !! Otherwise you get data that is very highly unreliable. I certainly would not want to be trained with protocols that were developed from a drowsy or sleep deprived state. We need to teach our clients how important sleep is, especially if we want to be successful in assessing and training.

I wonder if drowsiness is the major factor that affects data from session to session?

Best Regards,

JD Elder

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

As you mention, there are many factors that affect the EEG, some more than others. I have attached a form that I put together with the help of Dale a few years ago which may be helpful in this regard. If it doesn’t get through, I’ll see if it can be posted. Some of the factors are: cigarettes, coffee, food, stimulants in general, sleep, medications, exercise, etc., etc. I think that an EEG Intake Form is a good idea and may help avoid getting unreliable data.

JD

 JD, Since getting my own QEEG a few years back which showed extremely high theta/beta at CZ which was not collaborated by any of my mini Q's or training data, I had wondered about the effects of drowsiness as one of many factors that can not only effect the results of QEEG but also our own training data and mini Q's. I juxtapose such observations with Pete's own teachings about the problem with comparing training data across sessions, looking for trends and instead focusing on within session starting points for shareholding and with the inconsistent results on demonstrating learning curves by the research in this field.

Recently I have attempted to train down 8-11 hz at CZ based in part on my own QEEG and have found that my baseline during a 30 second eyes closed can be any where from 3.0 to 6 uv's. For the most part my intra session values during training go down. However, my base line reading post session is some times much higher than pre session.

In other words there are many confounding valuable here. One is the drowsiness you speak of from not getting enough sleep, The other is the effects of the training which, at least in my case appears to be causing a rebound in alpha, probably from some type of fatigue like dynamic.

Another confounding valuable is bio rhythms and circadian rhythms. Dietary factors both long an short term probably also effect QEEG measurements..

Another very big factor in terms of training based on QEEG and even mini Q involves when during the closing or opening of the eyes such measurements are being used to come up with the norms. I believe this is called data sampling. So for example. In collecting QEEG data on an individual, the value of alpha will change radically based on how soon it is being measured just after closing eyes and this change in values based on the task of closing eyes will vary among individuals.

I think some on the QEEG field have minimized such influences and the dilemma they pose for training.

In addition to Pete's mini Q I have done multiple Swingle mini Q's on my self. The swingle mini Q showed a deficient alpha response to eyes closing at CZ while the QEEG showed to much alpha at CZ with eyes closed. Training CZ down with eyes closed based on the QEEG could be at odds with the training based on the swingle mini Q. They are measuring different aspects of brain functioning. One way out of that might be training down CZ with eyes closed only after eyes have been closed for a while so as not to further reduce the alpha response dynamic shortly after closing ones eyes. However it would be far easier to take into account the various valuables one must consider if one had information about when during the data sampling into the state change of (eyes open, eyes closed or task, etc) the data was being taken that is being used in getting the norms.

Where even in the mention of QEEG data collection and research is such discussion.

I do realize that training within in the confines of just one approach such as the TLC or Swingles would keep one from having to consider some but not all of the coufounds that JD and I have raised

Bruce Z Berman

Sleep Deprivation and Drowsiness

In clinical practice it is very common to see clients who are in a state of drowsiness or sleep deprivation, it’s the nature of our modern fast paced society, and we need to be aware of how severely this can affect our assessments and training. The following are some clinical observations that highlight this concern.

Some of my recent observations brought this topic to the forefront as I was experimenting with developing and testing out a manual, Swingle’s Assessment of 5 sites (Cz, O1, F3, F4, Fz) that I have been working on for my personal use. I did an initial assessment on my grandson and got good results. Eight days later, I tried to do another assessment only to discover that my grandson had only 3 ½ hours of sleep the night before, and I was trying to collect the data in the late evening when he was acutely sleep deprived. Even with short, 60 second data collection sessions, he was nodding off almost immediately and it was obviously affecting the raw EEG, so I used tapping every 10 seconds during the sessions to try and keep him awake and alert during the EEG acquisition. Even though I knew from the onset that we were collecting poor data, I went through the process anyway, because I had already prepared all of the sites. The following are just some of my observations when compared to the initial assessment.

· Alpha Response (% change from EC to EO). In the initial assessment at Cz the alpha response was 36.48%, within the normative range (> 30%), and the alpha response at O1 was 163.53% a state of being potentially creative and artistic. When sleep deprived, Cz was 22.38% (less than normal) and O1 was 6.17% (much less than normal, > 50%, and similar to being in a state of emotional abuse).

· The Theta/Beta ratios at Cz and most other sites went from within normal limits to being significantly out of normal range.

· Theta/SMR and Theta/Alpha ratios as well as F3-F4 asymmetries were negatively affected and many were out of normal range.

Several days later, in an attempt to avoid the sleep deprivation I had him take a long nap (2 hours plus). He was up for ½ an hour, he refreshed himself and drank some cold water. Days earlier, he had stopped taking his supplements that his parents were having him take to improve his ability to focus and attend in school and help him with his asthma.

· When he was drowsy, after his nap, his Alpha Responses (Cz, O1) were within normal limits, but not near as high when he was more alert.

· Most of his T/B, T/SMR, and T/A ratios were out of normal range.

· And his PAF’s were below normal (> 9.5 Hz), i.e., Cz - 9.31 Hz, O1 - 9.19 Hz.

I was concerned that the drowsy state or stopping of his supplements may have caused the drop in his PAFs. Later that night we did a 20 minute training session at Cz, followed by a 60 seconds assessment and then followed by a 30 second assessment. I was delighted to see his PAF for 20 minute session was up to normal.

· 20 minute training session his PAF was at 9.98 Hz a noticeable improvement from the assessment 4 hours earlier when it was below normal because of drowsiness

· 60 second assessment the PAF was 9.83 Hz

· 30 second assessment the PAF was 9.55 Hz

I haven’t gone into all the details, but it is easy to see that sleep deprivation and drowsiness can very seriously affect our assessments and training. The stopping of the supplements didn’t seem to affect the assessments, but drowsiness and sleep deprivation, certainly did. Most notably, sleep deprivation and drowsiness seemed to be the major contributors to the negative outcomes. EEG assessments should not be done when clients are fatigued, tired, sleep deprived, or drowsy – RESCHEDULE !! Otherwise you get data that is very highly unreliable. I certainly would not want to be trained with protocols that were developed from a drowsy or sleep deprived state. We need to teach our clients how important sleep is, especially if we want to be successful in assessing and training.

I wonder if drowsiness is the major factor that affects data from session to session?

Best Regards,

JD Elder

3 of 3 File(s)

Preparation for EEG.doc

EEG Intake Form.doc

Instructions for EEG Acquisition Intake Form.doc