RE: Confounds to Pre-Post comparisons of theta/beta

[Guest guest]

Pete before reading the paragraph below, make note of the fact that I'm not

loosing site of the client makeing the changes " they " want as the ultimate

indicator of success of the work they do :-)

Given that lowering theta/beta ratios is a type of exercise for the brain, how

can one reliably measure training progress by using such comparisons? In other

words even with learning going on durring the session(lowering theta/beta)the

demands on the brain in doing so would also be expected to raise the ratio due

to the workload. I wonder how such confounds get factored into the research?

Bruce

[Guest guest]

Lubar published a nice study nearly 20 years ago in which he trained something like 10 young men with the ADHD diagnosis to reduce theta and rewarded beta.  7 or 8 of the 10 showed significant improvement on TOVA scores, teacher ratings, parent ratings and academic performance after 30 sessions.  What he showed was the every one of the  successful clients reduced theta amplitudes over the sessions.  None of the " unsuccessful " clients (who showed improvement only on parent rating scales) was able to learn this.  I don't really worry much about training the ratio or even uptraining beta.  In most cases I've found that just learning to control slow wave activity--increase and sustain metabolic rates and improve control functions--does the trick.

Actually, what I would expect as someone goes from baseline eyes open to task is a reduction in all frequencies.  Alpha and theta are higher amplitude frequencies, so reducing them reduces overall activity.  And beta is a local frequency.  It's not altogether clear to me that trying to increase beta amplitudes is such a hot idea.  I think training helps to improve maintenance of the activity over time, but not necessarily amplitude.  When theta goes down, beta probably does as well in much training--just not as much, so the ratio may change.

Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com

USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, thor432001 <MindFitness@...> wrote:

 

Pete before reading the paragraph below, make note of the fact that I'm not

loosing site of the client makeing the changes " they " want as the ultimate

indicator of success of the work they do :-)

Given that lowering theta/beta ratios is a type of exercise for the brain, how

can one reliably measure training progress by using such comparisons? In other

words even with learning going on durring the session(lowering theta/beta)the

demands on the brain in doing so would also be expected to raise the ratio due

to the workload. I wonder how such confounds get factored into the research?

Bruce

[Guest guest]

The focus on reduction of slow wave in such cases does also minimize the

possiblility of side effects too. It's interesting to note the differences in

QEEG training recomendations from people like Jay who will recomend up training

of beta vs the guy in scotsdale who primarily recomends down training.

Thanks Pete,

Bruce

>

> > **

> >

> >

> > Pete before reading the paragraph below, make note of the fact that I'm not

> > loosing site of the client makeing the changes " they " want as the ultimate

> > indicator of success of the work they do :-)

> >

> > Given that lowering theta/beta ratios is a type of exercise for the brain,

> > how

> > can one reliably measure training progress by using such comparisons? In

> > other

> > words even with learning going on durring the session(lowering

> > theta/beta)the

> > demands on the brain in doing so would also be expected to raise the ratio

> > due

> > to the workload. I wonder how such confounds get factored into the

> > research?

> >

> > Bruce

> >

> >

> >

>