Guest guest Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Dear , In order to answer this question we must investigate what the EEG signal is really telling us. The first question is what is amplitude. From what I understand simply put, it is the average building up of potential and discharging of a large population of neurons directly under the electrode as related to the reference. The more in phase this population of neurons the higher the amplitude in any given frequency range. When performing an FFT Assessment you are actually taking this average over an extremely long period of time (i.e. 1 to 4 minutes vs. 250 ms). When using a monopolar montage the brain is asked to increase the number of neurons in phase at the reward band. This does not mean that amplitude will increase. It just means we are applying this stimulus to the brain and it is up to the brain to react and perhaps change to this stimulus. It is then up to us to record and analyze this change if and whatever it may be. Hopefully, the activation is in the direction we intend and then might be repeatable. When using a bipolar montage the brain is asked to vary or decrease the neurons in phase (make them more different) at the reward band. This does not mean the amplitude will decrease. It just means we are applying a stimulus to the brain and it is up to the brain to react and perhaps change to this stimulus. It is then up to us to record and analyze this change if and whatever it may be. Hopefully, the activation or deactivation (it is really up to the brain as to how it reacts) is in the direction we intend and then might be repeatable. The problem comes in measuring results. teaches the only true measurable results come from measuring changes in the subjects life. In using a monopolar montage it is easy to measure statistical results based upon the eeg. Success here may prove encouraging however, are meaningless if the subjects symptoms and complaints aren't remediated. Using a bipolar montage makes it difficult if not impossible to gain statistical data. However, many clients have had great symptom and complaint remediation when subjected to bipolar montages as proven by the likes of Lubar, and Sharrie Hanley as well as other great practitioners in this field Reich jreichnan@... bi-polar montages Hello everyone! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me. I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as "we are going to increase beta here" or "it would be good to decrease slow activity here". The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy? If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen? Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Even the earlobes and mastoids are picking up eeg activity from the surrounding area(temporal lobes). So calling anything monopolar is misleading.BruceFrom: " Reich" <jreichnan@...> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:58:22 PMSubject: Re: bi-polar montages Dear , In order to answer this question we must investigate what the EEG signal is really telling us. The first question is what is amplitude. From what I understand simply put, it is the average building up of potential and discharging of a large population of neurons directly under the electrode as related to the reference. The more in phase this population of neurons the higher the amplitude in any given frequency range. When performing an FFT Assessment you are actually taking this average over an extremely long period of time (i.e. 1 to 4 minutes vs. 250 ms). When using a monopolar montage the brain is asked to increase the number of neurons in phase at the reward band. This does not mean that amplitude will increase. It just means we are applying this stimulus to the brain and it is up to the brain to react and perhaps change to this stimulus. It is then up to us to record and analyze this change if and whatever it may be. Hopefully, the activation is in the direction we intend and then might be repeatable. When using a bipolar montage the brain is asked to vary or decrease the neurons in phase (make them more different) at the reward band. This does not mean the amplitude will decrease. It just means we are applying a stimulus to the brain and it is up to the brain to react and perhaps change to this stimulus. It is then up to us to record and analyze this change if and whatever it may be. Hopefully, the activation or deactivation (it is really up to the brain as to how it reacts) is in the direction we intend and then might be repeatable. The problem comes in measuring results. teaches the only true measurable results come from measuring changes in the subjects life. In using a monopolar montage it is easy to measure statistical results based upon the eeg. Success here may prove encouraging however, are meaningless if the subjects symptoms and complaints aren't remediated. Using a bipolar montage makes it difficult if not impossible to gain statistical data. However, many clients have had great symptom and complaint remediation when subjected to bipolar montages as proven by the likes of Lubar, and Sharrie Hanley as well as other great practitioners in this field Reich jreichnan@... bi-polar montages Hello everyone! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me. I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as "we are going to increase beta here" or "it would be good to decrease slow activity here". The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy? If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen? Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012  Yes I also thought it was a geographical arrangement (but now as usual I'm confused). So for example, C3 - C4 would be as if C3 were the active and C4 the reference -- (or the reverse, of course) -- as opposed to, for example, C3-A1, where C3 is the active and the ear is the reference. So that (if I'm correct) C3-C4 would allow you to change whatever you're trying to change between those two locations -- to the area *between* them. The idea that you are doing something to the *difference* between them is that you're isolating what is happening by subtracting one from the other (what they call " common mode rejection " ) -- which is the same thing you are doing with *any* active site minus any reference site. Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that little jumper cable?? So now I am thinking that we need to differentiate between a *bipolar* montage and a *two-channel* design!Utterly befuddled now. But great question, .Liz  On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote:  > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 > Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does > the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* > references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that > little jumper cable?? A C3-C4 bipolar montage would have only three electrodes: C3/C4/g (active/reference/ground). A two channel monopolar (referential) montage using C3 and C4 would have five electrodes (C3/A1/g/A2/C4). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 You produce a nice clear statement of things as they are--and then say " to further confuse things " ...There cannot be two active electrodes in one channel.  The electrodes can both be over active EEG sites, but one is active and one is reference, and the training is, as you wrote, the difference between the two sites. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote:   Yes I also thought it was a geographical arrangement (but now as usual I'm confused). So for example, C3 - C4 would be as if C3 were the active and C4 the reference -- (or the reverse, of course) -- as opposed to, for example, C3-A1, where C3 is the active and the ear is the reference. So that (if I'm correct) C3-C4 would allow you to change whatever you're trying to change between those two locations -- to the area *between* them. The idea that you are doing something to the *difference* between them is that you're isolating what is happening by subtracting one from the other (what they call " common mode rejection " ) -- which is the same thing you are doing with *any* active site minus any reference site. Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that little jumper cable?? So now I am thinking that we need to differentiate between a *bipolar* montage and a *two-channel* design!Utterly befuddled now. But great question, .Liz  On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote:  > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Thanks, . - LizOn Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote:  > Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does > the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* > references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that > little jumper cable?? A C3-C4 bipolar montage would have only three electrodes: C3/C4/g (active/reference/ground). A two channel monopolar (referential) montage using C3 and C4 would have five electrodes (C3/A1/g/A2/C4). -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Pete,Could you comment on this statement of 's (the original question in this thread): " The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward " -- and how that relates to training the amplitude between the two sites up or down -- ?Thank you -- LizOn Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote:  You produce a nice clear statement of things as they are--and then say " to further confuse things " ...There cannot be two active electrodes in one channel.  The electrodes can both be over active EEG sites, but one is active and one is reference, and the training is, as you wrote, the difference between the two sites. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote:   Yes I also thought it was a geographical arrangement (but now as usual I'm confused). So for example, C3 - C4 would be as if C3 were the active and C4 the reference -- (or the reverse, of course) -- as opposed to, for example, C3-A1, where C3 is the active and the ear is the reference. So that (if I'm correct) C3-C4 would allow you to change whatever you're trying to change between those two locations -- to the area *between* them. The idea that you are doing something to the *difference* between them is that you're isolating what is happening by subtracting one from the other (what they call " common mode rejection " ) -- which is the same thing you are doing with *any* active site minus any reference site. Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that little jumper cable?? So now I am thinking that we need to differentiate between a *bipolar* montage and a *two-channel* design!Utterly befuddled now. But great question, .Liz  On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote:  > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 ,Astonishing as it may seem, there are actually people doing NF who don't have much idea of what they are doing other than following a recipe.  You are correct that training bipolar montages does not necessarily reduce what you are inhibiting or increase what you are rewarding.  You are training to increase or decrease the difference between the two measuring sites. There is some evidence that training bipolar may have an effect on synchrony, since synchronizing or de-synchronizing sites in a frequency is one way to raise or low amplitude differentials between them.  And bipolar training in some sense requires the two sites to " pay attention " to one another and " work together " to achieve a result.  There are philosophies of training (e.g. Othmers) which work almost exclusively with bipolar montages.  Others which work almost exclusively with monopolar.  I find that some clients respond well to certain bipolar montages, which others don't.  If you understand what you are doing and use them wisely, either or both can be useful. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Zumbach <zumbach@...> wrote:  Hello everyone!I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen?  Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Excluding the use of references at either ear or mastoid, which is picking up temporal lobe activity, what montages are you thinking is exclusively monopolar? Bruce Re: bi-polar montages , Astonishing as it may seem, there are actually people doing NF who don't have much idea of what they are doing other than following a recipe. You are correct that training bipolar montages does not necessarily reduce what you are inhibiting or increase what you are rewarding. You are training to increase or decrease the difference between the two measuring sites. There is some evidence that training bipolar may have an effect on synchrony, since synchronizing or de-synchronizing sites in a frequency is one way to raise or low amplitude differentials between them. And bipolar training in some sense requires the two sites to "pay attention" to one another and "work together" to achieve a result. There are philosophies of training (e.g. Othmers) which work almost exclusively with bipolar montages. Others which work almost exclusively with monopolar. I find that some clients respond well to certain bipolar montages, which others don't. If you understand what you are doing and use them wisely, either or both can be useful. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Zumbach <zumbach@...> wrote: Hello everyone! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me. I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as "we are going to increase beta here" or "it would be good to decrease slow activity here". The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy? If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen? Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Liz,I think I did.  It doesn't relate to overall amplitudes.  Bipolar relates to relationships.The TLC Design package has the Sum Difference designs in the Options package, so you can train overall amplitudes in many different bands (Sum) and train relationships in specific bands (Difference) at the same time. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote:  Pete,Could you comment on this statement of 's (the original question in this thread): " The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward " -- and how that relates to training the amplitude between the two sites up or down -- ?Thank you -- LizOn Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote:  You produce a nice clear statement of things as they are--and then say " to further confuse things " ...There cannot be two active electrodes in one channel.  The electrodes can both be over active EEG sites, but one is active and one is reference, and the training is, as you wrote, the difference between the two sites. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote:   Yes I also thought it was a geographical arrangement (but now as usual I'm confused). So for example, C3 - C4 would be as if C3 were the active and C4 the reference -- (or the reverse, of course) -- as opposed to, for example, C3-A1, where C3 is the active and the ear is the reference. So that (if I'm correct) C3-C4 would allow you to change whatever you're trying to change between those two locations -- to the area *between* them. The idea that you are doing something to the *difference* between them is that you're isolating what is happening by subtracting one from the other (what they call " common mode rejection " ) -- which is the same thing you are doing with *any* active site minus any reference site. Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that little jumper cable?? So now I am thinking that we need to differentiate between a *bipolar* montage and a *two-channel* design!Utterly befuddled now. But great question, .Liz  On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote:  > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 Thanks, Pete. It's coming more clear now. Liz S. Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:13 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote: Liz,I think I did. It doesn't relate to overall amplitudes. Bipolar relates to relationships.The TLC Design package has the Sum Difference designs in the Options package, so you can train overall amplitudes in many different bands (Sum) and train relationships in specific bands (Difference) at the same time. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote: Pete,Could you comment on this statement of 's (the original question in this thread):"The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated or more similar depending on what you reward" -- and how that relates to training the amplitude between the two sites up or down -- ?Thank you -- LizOn Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote: You produce a nice clear statement of things as they are--and then say "to further confuse things"...There cannot be two active electrodes in one channel. The electrodes can both be over active EEG sites, but one is active and one is reference, and the training is, as you wrote, the difference between the two sites. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Margoshes <drmargoshes@...> wrote: Yes I also thought it was a geographical arrangement (but now as usual I'm confused). So for example, C3 - C4 would be as if C3 were the active and C4 the reference -- (or the reverse, of course) -- as opposed to, for example, C3-A1, where C3 is the active and the ear is the reference. So that (if I'm correct) C3-C4 would allow you to change whatever you're trying to change between those two locations -- to the area *between* them. The idea that you are doing something to the *difference* between them is that you're isolating what is happening by subtracting one from the other (what they call "common mode rejection") -- which is the same thing you are doing with *any* active site minus any reference site. Now, to confuse things even more -- if what I just posted is true, why does the typical bipolar montage have the two actives, and then, not only *two* references (generally the ears), but references that are *linked* by that little jumper cable?? So now I am thinking that we need to differentiate between a *bipolar* montage and a *two-channel* design!Utterly befuddled now. But great question, .Liz On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote: > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist -- Margoshes, Ph.D.New York State Licensed Psychologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2012 Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 If you train C3 vs A1, the signal at A1 doesn't change, so any change you see will be at C3. Â If there is too much theta and you want to reduce it in a bipolar montage, if the signal goes down theta is being reduced at C3. If you train C3 vs C4, either or both signals can change. Â If C3 theta is 8u at beginning and rises to 9 and C4 theta stays at 10u, you'll show reduced theta, when the total level of theta has actually increased. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote: Â > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen? Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point. For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways: a) increase beta at C3 decrease beta at C4 Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 The link below provides a simple way to undertand all this http://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/eegintro/eeg2.htm Bruce Re: Re: bi-polar montages If you train C3 vs A1, the signal at A1 doesn't change, so any change you see will be at C3. If there is too much theta and you want to reduce it in a bipolar montage, if the signal goes down theta is being reduced at C3. If you train C3 vs C4, either or both signals can change. If C3 theta is 8u at beginning and rises to 9 and C4 theta stays at 10u, you'll show reduced theta, when the total level of theta has actually increased. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM, mercado_83 <mercado_83@...> wrote: > If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity > what are we intending to have happen?Well, I think in a bipolar montage we ARE trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, we're just measuring it relative to a different point.For example, if a practitioner sets up a C3-C4 bipolar montage and sets the software to reward beta at C3, we're intending to increase beta at C3 relative to C4. Of course, the brain can meet this challenge in two different ways:a) increase beta at C3b) decrease beta at C4Which leads us to the epistemological problem of not knowing how much of a) is happening relative to , which is the reason many people shun bipolar montages. But in the end we are still trying to increase or decrease amplitudes, the same way we are in a monopolar montage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Pete, You are the best, the recipe statement helped me get some well needed context.  I guess that since working on training alpha-synchrony with a summed amplitude model I have been spoiled by its straightforward nature. I have people who have been coming to me for months and all of them have gotten better at triggering this easy to measure cortical event. I measure an occurrence, they get better at associating the occurrence with different mental and physical states, and subsequently get better at producing the occurrence at will. With a bi-polar montage things just seem so variable, as you say if you train C3 vs C4 then either or both signals can change and your target frequency could go up or down.  It is so far removed from getting better at triggering a particular event.  Do you see why this would make me a little uncomfortable? Funny thing is, in spite of the mystery, so many people have felt that these montages have made a positive impact on their quality of life.  I feel that something must be working here.  Is the idea that when you push on the brain with so many potential outcomes that the brain is making the most appropriate homeostasis inducing decision?  We are asking for just about any kind of change and then the brain knows whats best?  I'm just begging for a rationale! Thanks everyone who responded this has been really fun to read! Z On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:52 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote:  , Astonishing as it may seem, there are actually people doing NF who don't have much idea of what they are doing other than following a recipe.  You are correct that training bipolar montages does not necessarily reduce what you are inhibiting or increase what you are rewarding.  You are training to increase or decrease the difference between the two measuring sites. There is some evidence that training bipolar may have an effect on synchrony, since synchronizing or de-synchronizing sites in a frequency is one way to raise or low amplitude differentials between them.  And bipolar training in some sense requires the two sites to " pay attention " to one another and " work together " to achieve a result.  There are philosophies of training (e.g. Othmers) which work almost exclusively with bipolar montages.  Others which work almost exclusively with monopolar.  I find that some clients respond well to certain bipolar montages, which others don't.  If you understand what you are doing and use them wisely, either or both can be useful. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Zumbach <zumbach@...> wrote:  Hello everyone! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen?  Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Hi , As someone who takes a great deal of personal heat from Barry Sterman because I sometimes use bipolar placements, I will throw in my 2 cents into the discussion. Pete made a terrific explanation of the difference. Sometimes the problems we see in neurofeedback relate to amplitude problems (arousal issues) at one or more sites. Sometimes the problems relate to dynamics between areas in the brain. A lack of cooperation Left/right and/or front/back contribute to functional problems. Bipolar placements encourage better cooperation between the areas used in the protocols. One side can increase or decrease freq in some bandwidth to attain reinforcement but there can also be shifts in phase relationships impacting coherence. Regardless, they have to cooperate. If site A increases it's activity, site B cannot simultaneously increase it's similar activity or the increase will not trigger the reinforcement. So, even though one site is making initiating amplitude change, the alternate site has to respond in a way that maximizes the increase for learning to occur. As long as learning is occurring, cooperation must be occurring. At least this is how I've come to think of the relationship. I hope this helps some. Ed Re: bi-polar montages Pete, You are the best, the recipe statement helped me get some well needed context.  I guess that since working on training alpha-synchrony with a summed amplitude model I have been spoiled by its straightforward nature. I have people who have been coming to me for months and all of them have gotten better at triggering this easy to measure cortical event. I measure an occurrence, they get better at associating the occurrence with different mental and physical states, and subsequently get better at producing the occurrence at will. With a bi-polar montage things just seem so variable, as you say if you train C3 vs C4 then either or both signals can change and your target frequency could go up or down.  It is so far removed from getting better at triggering a particular event.  Do you see why this would make me a little uncomfortable? Funny thing is, in spite of the mystery, so many people have felt that these montages have made a positive impact on their quality of life.  I feel that something must be working here.  Is the idea that when you push on the brain with so many potential outcomes that the brain is making the most appropriate homeostasis inducing decision?  We are asking for just about any kind of change and then the brain knows whats best?  I'm just begging for a rationale! Thanks everyone who responded this has been really fun to read! Z On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:52 AM, pvdtlc <pvdtlc@...> wrote:  , Astonishing as it may seem, there are actually people doing NF who don't have much idea of what they are doing other than following a recipe.  You are correct that training bipolar montages does not necessarily reduce what you are inhibiting or increase what you are rewarding.  You are training to increase or decrease the difference between the two measuring sites. There is some evidence that training bipolar may have an effect on synchrony, since synchronizing or de-synchronizing sites in a frequency is one way to raise or low amplitude differentials between them.  And bipolar training in some sense requires the two sites to " pay attention " to one another and " work together " to achieve a result.  There are philosophies of training (e.g. Othmers) which work almost exclusively with bipolar montages.  Others which work almost exclusively with monopolar.  I find that some clients respond well to certain bipolar montages, which others don't.  If you understand what you are doing and use them wisely, either or both can be useful. Pete -- Van Deusen pvdtlc@... http://www.brain-trainer.com USA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235 The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Zumbach <zumbach@...> wrote:  Hello everyone! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen?  Thanks, Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals. One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone! > > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to > increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity > here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict. > > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Correction: I have certainly seen differences when measuring A1-O1 vs A1-O2 Bruce Re: bi-polar montages I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 God this is tough to write without mixing it up. One last correction. A1-O1 vs A2-O1 Bruce Re: Re: bi-polar montages Correction: I have certainly seen differences when measuring A1-O1 vs A1-O2 Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Bruce,What do you use for your reference locations if not the earlobe? ZOn Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote:  The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals. One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone! > > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to > increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity > here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict. > > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Bruce,What do you use for your reference locations if not the earlobe? ZOn Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote:  The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals. One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone! > > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to > increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity > here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict. > > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Hi , for sensory motor training I use either A1-C3 or A2-C4 as Barry Sterman has suggested. This both maximizes the the amplitude detected of SMR making it easier to train and trains a wider area of the sensory motor cortext. In general for left side up training of beta, I use A1 as reference and for right side up training of theta or alpha, I use A2. For two chanel asymetry training I use CZ as the reference. When I'm training with CARE(comprehensive adaptive Renormalization of the EEG) I use two chanel ipsolateral references. The hook up for that is A1-C3 and A2-C4. I do this with that approach to preserve phase information. I like using the earlobes as much as the next guy, It just helps me to conceptualize what I'm doing to view it as a type of bipolar training depending on how they are bieng used. Now I guess what I'm still unclear about is why I prefere the ears as references for some types of training than say the temporal lobes? Bruce Re: Re: bi-polar montages Bruce, What do you use for your reference locations if not the earlobe? Z On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote: The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals.One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone!> > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as "we are going to > increase beta here" or "it would be good to decrease slow activity > here".  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict.> > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 OOPs I did it again, I meant A1-C4 or A2- C3 for SMR training. Bruce Re: Re: bi-polar montages Bruce, What do you use for your reference locations if not the earlobe? Z On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote: The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals.One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone!> > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as "we are going to > increase beta here" or "it would be good to decrease slow activity > here".  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict.> > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 hello group, since the earlobes are not electrically neutral and picking up temperal lobe activity, could you say that with all amplitude training protocols with ear reference you always train the temporal lobes as well, since it is all bipolar? (there was a nice thread a while ago on the biofeedback list biofeedback/message/57408) on the other hand when you do coherence training, with linked ears reference, would that be a more " clear " approach and " number reliable " since the reference is for both channels exactly the same, and more difficult to change because they are two locations and far apart? it just now comes to my mind if you would do amplitude training with linked ears, could you be more certain to really train that site? if in a bipolar montage with linked ears reference, i would suspect it more easy to change the one training site than the reference ( since changing one reference would just have half the effect since they are linked)? and in the assessment, the measured amplitudes are based on linked ears reference. michael > > > Hello everyone! > > > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational behind using bi-polar montages to me. I have met a lot of folks who use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity here " . The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations more differentiated or more similar depending on what you reward - to which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the conflict. > > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic behind this training philosophy? If we aren't trying to increase or decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have happen? > > > Thanks, Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 BruceWhere can I learn more about CARE.Thank youNuritOn Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Z. Berman <MindFitness@...> wrote:  Hi , for sensory motor training I use either A1-C3 or A2-C4 as Barry Sterman has suggested. This both maximizes the the amplitude detected of SMR making it easier to train and trains a wider area of the sensory motor cortext.  In general for left side up training of beta, I use A1 as reference and for right side up training of theta or alpha, I use A2.  For two chanel asymetry training I use CZ as the reference.  When I'm training with CARE(comprehensive adaptive Renormalization of the EEG) I use two chanel ipsolateral references. The hook up for that is A1-C3 and A2-C4. I do this with that approach to preserve phase information.   I like using the earlobes as much as the next guy, It just helps me to conceptualize what I'm doing to view it as a type of bipolar training depending on how they are bieng used.  Now I guess what I'm still unclear about is why I prefere the ears as references for some types of training than say the temporal lobes?  Bruce Re: Re: bi-polar montages  Bruce, What do you use for your reference locations if not the earlobe? Z On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote:  The heat you take from Barry Sterman about bipolar placements vs Barry's preference for using contralateral vs ipsolateral ear references to maxmize the signal reveals an inconsistentcy in the logic used by some experts in this field in terms of the idea that we are just training one site in what has been called monopolar placements. Neutral or close to zero ear references(a requirement of the notion that we are training monopolar or just one site) would not have some promoting ipsolateral vs contralateral,some cautioning about creating asmymetries by referencing to one ear lobe over the other and pete favoring linked ears in some desighns so as to minimize asymetrical effects on the temporals.One could of course simply do a measurement at A1-A2 to see that ear references are far from neutral. Another way to verify this experimentaly is to compare your readings when using the same actives and alternative ear references. I have certainly seen differences when measuring a1-O1 vs A2-O2. Bruce > >  > > Hello everyone!> > > I'm wondering if someone would be willing to explain their rational > behind using bi-polar montages to me.  I have met a lot of folks who > use bi-polar montages and employ language such as " we are going to > increase beta here " or " it would be good to decrease slow activity > here " .  The problem is that no one is necessarily increasing or > decreasing anything with a bi-polar montage.  If I'm understanding the > mechanics properly bi-polar montages make two locations > more differentiated  or more similar depending on what you reward - to > which the brain could react by doing just about anything to resolve the > conflict.> > > So if someone would be willing to help me understand, what is the logic > behind this training philosophy?  If we aren't trying to increase or > decrease certain types of activity what are we intending to have > happen?  > > > Thanks, Z> 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.