Guest guest Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 > > > > > > 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 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Thank you for explaining Bruce! Yeah I'm going to just measure my earlobes tomorrow and see how different it is from the temporal. Perhaps A1 and A2 is less data than T3 and T4... but is it better to be closer to neutral or does any information basically make it functionally equivalent? ZOn Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:15 PM, 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...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 lenny, thanks for your explanations. does that also mean that if you do alpha training at pz, a2 as reference, if pz and t4 (or a2 for that matter) are producing nice synchronous alpha, what you see in the software is a lowering of the alpha amplitude? you wrote: > The two ears (in effect, mostly the two Temporal sites) in a > linked-ear scenario _may_ cut down the amount of unintended Temporal > training, but only to the extent that the Temporals neutralize each > other. They _can_, though, alternatively, just respond in coherent > unison, receiving just as much training effect as a single Temporal. but the coherence and synchrony values in all frequencies between t3 and t4 are mostly quite small, and when you want to train coherence up at these sites it is quite hard to rise coherence values. so wouldnt be the chance for t3 and t4 to respond in coherent unison quite small and it would be more likely for these sides not to be coherent? if this is the case, the linked ear reference would be electrically more stable in a sense that there are less big peaks, more like a flatter line? i thought of a simple setup that would indicate if the references ( or temporals) would be synchronous. you need one more channel to do this. you need a jumper cable to connect the drl also to the active of the amp. you put the jumpered drl and the linked reference together on a channel on your amp and use a simple threshold to indicate if values are getting much higher or not. if the references are in synchrony, their electrical activity sums up and the amplitudes go up. you could use a manual threshold after setting up a baseline and if the amplitudes are too high, you get feedback. that would also indicate that you did not change the amplitudes at your training site but you changed the references. as an example, if you want to uptrain alpha at pz. the drl you put on fz and gnd. pz is active channel 1, linked ears are reference channel 1, jumpered drl is active ch2 and linked ears are reference channel 2. if the amplitude in the first channel increases and the references are not synchronous, indicated by not having feedback from the second channel, you can almost be certain it increased at pz. i am not 100% sure whether you can use the drl, but the active of the second channel should be at a place where one would not suspect so much activity in the trained frequency. normally at fz you would expect much less alpha than pz) therefore it is more likely that big amplitude changes in ch2 (drl and LE ref) are a result of changing the references, which would be result of the training in ch1. > When used in assessment, there's no " driving " of those Temporals to > respond in inison as there would be in a training situation, so the > logic there could well be different. i would suspect the second channel to have most of the time no feedback, so there would be just little " driving " ? would that be a possible setup? thanks for your input 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 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 >> The two ears (in effect, mostly the two Temporal sites) in a >> linked-ear scenario _may_ cut down the amount of unintended >> Temporal training, but only to the extent that the Temporals >> neutralize each other. They _can_, though, alternatively, just >> respond in coherent unison, receiving just as much training >> effect as a single Temporal. > but the coherence and synchrony values in all frequencies between > t3 and t4 are mostly quite small, and when you want to train > coherence up at these sites it is quite hard to rise coherence > values. so wouldnt be the chance for t3 and t4 to respond in > coherent unison quite small and it would be more likely for these > sides not to be coherent? When you're trying to uptrain coherence, you're trying to get the waves to match, so quite narrow filtering is probably necessary. However, literally downtraining a bipolar pair of sites _will_ cause " coherence " across the entire bands that get feedback just via the fact that that's how the minimization of that difference-voltage occurs. OTOH uptraining across a bipolar pair of sites _also_ causes " coherence " , though that's of the 180 out-of-phase flavor, as that's how _that_ target goal is satisfied. When you're giving feedback, basically _all_ that's being affected by feedback, both " rewarding " and " inhibiting " , _is_ coherence, and the neuron groups find a relatively convenient way to give us what we're requiring of them, so " likelihood " , in training, really only relates to that " convenience " . When I distinguished between the training scenario and the assessment scenario, that's what I was alluding to. True likelhood (of occurrence) does apply in the assessment phase. Our manipulation is what applies most in training. > if this is the case, the linked ear reference would be electrically > more stable in a sense that there are less big peaks, more like a > flatter line? > > i thought of a simple setup that would indicate if the references > ( or temporals) would be synchronous. you need one more channel to > do this. More channels is probably always useful but analyzing what's going on is even more important. > you need a jumper cable to connect the drl also to the active of > the amp. you put the jumpered drl and the linked reference > together on a channel on your amp and use a simple threshold to > indicate if values are getting much higher or not. In modern " parlance " and equipment, the Driven Right Leg (DRL) _is_ the " Ground " . And it's " driven " in the sense of being a charge-pump to keep the physical body and the ground of the amplifier at roughly the same (DC) voltage so that Common-Mode-Rejection for the amplifier can be kept high, That charge-pumping, though, _is_ DC, and isn't a signal of concern in most of our EEG work. _But_, since that charge pumping isn't considered a real EEG signal, it may be implemented on some equipment as a discontinuous current/charge source, and should probably not ever be connected to the same electrode as a reference. > if the references are in synchrony, their electrical activity sums > up and the amplitudes go up. you could use a manual threshold after > setting up a baseline and if the amplitudes are too high, you get > feedback. that would also indicate that you did not change the > amplitudes at your training site but you changed the references. > as an example, if you want to uptrain alpha at pz. the drl you put > on fz and gnd. pz is active channel 1, linked ears are reference > channel 1, jumpered drl is active ch2 and linked ears are reference > channel 2. if the amplitude in the first channel increases and the > references are not synchronous, indicated by not having feedback > from the second channel, you can almost be certain it increased at > pz. > > i am not 100% sure whether you can use the drl, but the active of > the second channel should be at a place where one would not suspect > so much activity in the trained frequency. normally at fz you would > expect much less alpha than pz) therefore it is more likely that big > amplitude changes in ch2 (drl and LE ref) are a result of changing > the references, which would be result of the training in ch1. Actually, reasoning with a detail like Fz (with eyes open) would have (much) less alpha than Pz, is probably _so_ much more important than other considerations that using it as a reference (for the specific purpose of alpha training of Pz) makes a lot of sense. This is the real reason for my emphasis that " IT'S ALL BIPOLAR " -- that such alternatives be considered. >> When used in assessment, there's no " driving " of those Temporals to >> respond in inison as there would be in a training situation, so the >> logic there could well be different. > > i would suspect the second channel to have most of the time no > feedback, so there would be just little " driving " ? If you're using those linked ears as a " reference " , then you can't say there's no " feedback " coming from it. If you're using different " references " for each " channel " , then how are you doing coherence work at all? > would that be a possible setup? As I said, _DO_ consider the possibility of Fz as a " reference " . Keep in mind that son's Alpha Asymmetry work used Cz as a Reference against F3 and F4 as Actives. The ears (even linked ears), are not especially _better_ as a reference for _anything_. When, in one of my posts, I wrote " _BEWARE_, it's all bipolar " , that BEWARE really does mean BE AWARE. - Lenny Gray - > thanks for your input > michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 lenny, thank you very much for your explanations. slowly it is getting clearer. but i still have questions. i did a lot of alpha training at pz and found that sometimes for short periods of time it felt like an alpha state, but the feedback was not indicating an alpha state. could it be that the reason is as you said through the coherence/phase change at pz and a2 (or t4)? so more synchronous activity makes the amplitude smaller. i greatly benefitted from alpha training but also found some limitations. so my questions come from practical observation. could this also be the reason that sometimes the trainings you do based on the assessment dont work so well? with the ear as reference the temporal lobe responds as well and maybe not in the desired direction? when you use fz as a reference for alpha training at pz you would train the default mode network. i guess this would feel different then training with ear as reference. i will try it out. but i still do not understand the disadvantage of a linked ear reference for amplitude training. this reference is used for assessment and coherence training, why not for amplitude? you write: > When you're giving feedback, basically _all_ that's being affected > by feedback, both " rewarding " and " inhibiting " , _is_ coherence, and > the neuron groups find a relatively convenient way to give us what > we're requiring of them, so " likelihood " , in training, really only > relates to that " convenience " . is it really just the coherence that is trained? i thought the more neurons firing in a particular frequency, the higher the amplitude in that frequency. cant you get more neurons firing through training? if so than that and coherence/ phase would be affected by training. michael > >> The two ears (in effect, mostly the two Temporal sites) in a > >> linked-ear scenario _may_ cut down the amount of unintended > >> Temporal training, but only to the extent that the Temporals > >> neutralize each other. They _can_, though, alternatively, just > >> respond in coherent unison, receiving just as much training > >> effect as a single Temporal. > > > but the coherence and synchrony values in all frequencies between > > t3 and t4 are mostly quite small, and when you want to train > > coherence up at these sites it is quite hard to rise coherence > > values. so wouldnt be the chance for t3 and t4 to respond in > > coherent unison quite small and it would be more likely for these > > sides not to be coherent? > > When you're trying to uptrain coherence, you're trying to get the > waves to match, so quite narrow filtering is probably necessary. > However, literally downtraining a bipolar pair of sites _will_ cause > " coherence " across the entire bands that get feedback just via the > fact that that's how the minimization of that difference-voltage > occurs. > > OTOH uptraining across a bipolar pair of sites _also_ causes > " coherence " , though that's of the 180 out-of-phase flavor, as > that's how _that_ target goal is satisfied. > > When you're giving feedback, basically _all_ that's being affected > by feedback, both " rewarding " and " inhibiting " , _is_ coherence, and > the neuron groups find a relatively convenient way to give us what > we're requiring of them, so " likelihood " , in training, really only > relates to that " convenience " . When I distinguished between the > training scenario and the assessment scenario, that's what I was > alluding to. True likelhood (of occurrence) does apply in the > assessment phase. Our manipulation is what applies most in training. > > > if this is the case, the linked ear reference would be electrically > > more stable in a sense that there are less big peaks, more like a > > flatter line? > > > > i thought of a simple setup that would indicate if the references > > ( or temporals) would be synchronous. you need one more channel to > > do this. > > More channels is probably always useful but analyzing what's going on > is even more important. > > > you need a jumper cable to connect the drl also to the active of > > the amp. you put the jumpered drl and the linked reference > > together on a channel on your amp and use a simple threshold to > > indicate if values are getting much higher or not. > > In modern " parlance " and equipment, the Driven Right Leg (DRL) _is_ > the " Ground " . And it's " driven " in the sense of being a charge-pump > to keep the physical body and the ground of the amplifier at roughly > the same (DC) voltage so that Common-Mode-Rejection for the amplifier > can be kept high, That charge-pumping, though, _is_ DC, and isn't a > signal of concern in most of our EEG work. _But_, since that charge > pumping isn't considered a real EEG signal, it may be implemented on > some equipment as a discontinuous current/charge source, and should > probably not ever be connected to the same electrode as a reference. > > > if the references are in synchrony, their electrical activity sums > > up and the amplitudes go up. you could use a manual threshold after > > setting up a baseline and if the amplitudes are too high, you get > > feedback. that would also indicate that you did not change the > > amplitudes at your training site but you changed the references. > > as an example, if you want to uptrain alpha at pz. the drl you put > > on fz and gnd. pz is active channel 1, linked ears are reference > > channel 1, jumpered drl is active ch2 and linked ears are reference > > channel 2. if the amplitude in the first channel increases and the > > references are not synchronous, indicated by not having feedback > > from the second channel, you can almost be certain it increased at > > pz. > > > > i am not 100% sure whether you can use the drl, but the active of > > the second channel should be at a place where one would not suspect > > so much activity in the trained frequency. normally at fz you would > > expect much less alpha than pz) therefore it is more likely that big > > amplitude changes in ch2 (drl and LE ref) are a result of changing > > the references, which would be result of the training in ch1. > > Actually, reasoning with a detail like Fz (with eyes open) would have > (much) less alpha than Pz, is probably _so_ much more important than > other considerations that using it as a reference (for the specific > purpose of alpha training of Pz) makes a lot of sense. This is the > real reason for my emphasis that " IT'S ALL BIPOLAR " -- that such > alternatives be considered. > > >> When used in assessment, there's no " driving " of those Temporals to > >> respond in inison as there would be in a training situation, so the > >> logic there could well be different. > > > > i would suspect the second channel to have most of the time no > > feedback, so there would be just little " driving " ? > > If you're using those linked ears as a " reference " , then you can't > say there's no " feedback " coming from it. If you're using different > " references " for each " channel " , then how are you doing coherence work at all? > > > would that be a possible setup? > > As I said, _DO_ consider the possibility of Fz as a " reference " . > > Keep in mind that son's Alpha Asymmetry work used Cz as a > Reference against F3 and F4 as Actives. The ears (even linked ears), > are not especially _better_ as a reference for _anything_. When, in > one of my posts, I wrote " _BEWARE_, it's all bipolar " , that BEWARE > really does mean BE AWARE. > > > - Lenny Gray - > > > > thanks for your input > > michael > 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.