RE: Re: Frequency (2 channel common ref.) or phase Bipolar montage?

August 1, 2012

Mike,If you have information that indicates a lower than " norm " phase relationship in a frequency between two sites (i.e. you've done a QEEG), and you have reason to believe that the phase synchrony between those sites in that/those frequencies is linked to the issues the client wants to change, and if you don't have a way to do a 2-channel phase/coherence training in that frequency between those sites (which you do if you use BE with the TLC designs and probably many others), then your best alternative is to train a one-channel bipolar montage between the sites at that frequency, increasing or decreasing depending on whether you want to increase or decrease phase angle.

If the problem is a control problem, as it very often is, and as you can quite clearly see looking at the EEG--that is, there is excessive amplitude or variability at a site or in an area--then training amplitude, usually to decrease, is probably a more useful approach.

I recognize the attractiveness of the idea of an S.O.P. or recipe approach in a world where you are dealing with all the complexities of the brain and digital signal processing (not to mention the psychology of a client and the system in which he/she lives). If you find one that works much of the time for you, then use it. I haven't (though I've tried a number of them from Mike Tansey's 14Hz training in the 90's through LENS and NeuroOptimal--or whatever Val Brown's system is called these days, through the early Othmers' menu driven sets). But that's me. I always read with interest 's posts on the list here, and I've found Noel's variations on the early Othmer stuff interesting, and I find 's posts informative and interesting. But I have found over the years that looking at the brain for symmetry and synchrony relatioinships, amplitude patterns, etc. and then producing a set of options that seem likely to move it in the desired direction, then spending a few sessions testing them to see what actually makes the client experience improvement is--while perhaps more demanding of the trainer--is most likely to produce positive effects that last within a fairly short period of time. And when something doesn't work, I have an idea why that happened and it informs my choices of what to do next.

Love to hear how your efforts work out.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com

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

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM, chiapetfarmer <chiapetfarmer@...> wrote:

Thanks for your earlier response. Just to get a practical modus operandi, would you generally train for " phase " (bipolar montage) on 2 intra-hemispheric locations, and then subsequently work toward leveling or aligning independent bandwiths (second approach - 2 channel monopolar montage)once you have a further idea of what the client is presenting or has concern about? Is this a level approach or is there a general rule of thumb?

August 1, 2012

Hi Mike,

I agree 100% with what Pete said below (all those years of experience/work in NF

at its best :-) )

I do a before/after " mind mirror " type of analysis for every session and this

gives a fairly clear picture of what goes on inside one's head. Most of those

who come for NF training do show a right dominance over left. This is

particularly true for the 12-15Hz. A window squash on the left side for this

frequency is the most obvious intervention as, on the whole, it's always better

to have the left side slightly higher than the right. Then (and this is where I

tend to differ from all other) do a coherence left/right in order to balance

both sides (the brain likes balance and " be ready " for processing any kind of

input).

To conclude, when you say " which is the preferred training regimen " it depends

on many factors. But do try to have some base from where you can work from. The

" mind mirror " type of analysis is a good start and does not delay too much the

NF's session, even if you have qEEGs and other newer EEG analysis

Bye for now,

-----

Alvoeiro,Ph.D(Hull,UK),C.Psychol/AFBPsS(BPS,UK)

2000-119 Santarem,

Portugal

E-mail: jorge.alvoeiro@...

http://jorge0alvoeiro.no.sapo.pt/

________________________________

De: em nome de pvdtlc

Enviada: qua 01-08-2012 11:37

Para:

Assunto: Re: Re: Frequency (2 channel common ref.) or " phase "

Bipolar montage?

Mike,

If you have information that indicates a lower than " norm " phase relationship in

a frequency between two sites (i.e. you've done a QEEG), and you have reason to

believe that the phase synchrony between those sites in that/those frequencies

is linked to the issues the client wants to change, and if you don't have a way

to do a 2-channel phase/coherence training in that frequency between those sites

(which you do if you use BE with the TLC designs and probably many others), then

your best alternative is to train a one-channel bipolar montage between the

sites at that frequency, increasing or decreasing depending on whether you want

to increase or decrease phase angle.

If the problem is a control problem, as it very often is, and as you can quite

clearly see looking at the EEG--that is, there is excessive amplitude or

variability at a site or in an area--then training amplitude, usually to

decrease, is probably a more useful approach.

I recognize the attractiveness of the idea of an S.O.P. or recipe approach in a

world where you are dealing with all the complexities of the brain and digital

signal processing (not to mention the psychology of a client and the system in

which he/she lives). If you find one that works much of the time for you, then

use it. I haven't (though I've tried a number of them from Mike Tansey's 14Hz

training in the 90's through LENS and NeuroOptimal--or whatever Val Brown's

system is called these days, through the early Othmers' menu driven sets). But

that's me. I always read with interest 's posts on the list here, and I've

found Noel's variations on the early Othmer stuff interesting, and I find

's posts informative and interesting. But I have found over the years

that looking at the brain for symmetry and synchrony relatioinships, amplitude

patterns, etc. and then producing a set of options that seem likely to move it

in the desired direction, then spending a few sessions testing them to see what

actually makes the client experience improvement is--while perhaps more

demanding of the trainer--is most likely to produce positive effects that last

within a fairly short period of time. And when something doesn't work, I have

an idea why that happened and it informs my choices of what to do next.

Love to hear how your efforts work out.

Pete

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlc@...

http://www.brain-trainer.com <http://www.brain-trainer.com/>

USA 678 224 5895

BR 47 3346 6235

The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM, chiapetfarmer <chiapetfarmer@...> wrote:

Thanks for your earlier response. Just to get a practical modus operandi, would

you generally train for " phase " (bipolar montage) on 2 intra-hemispheric

locations, and then subsequently work toward leveling or aligning independent

bandwiths (second approach - 2 channel monopolar montage)once you have a further

idea of what the client is presenting or has concern about? Is this a level

approach or is there a general rule of thumb?

August 1, 2012

,Would you explain '"mind mirror" type of analysis'? I read Wise's books and mind mirror is what I think they called their machine. From: jorge.alvoeiro@...Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:58:10 +0100Subject: RE: Re: Frequency (2 channel common ref.) or "phase" Bipolar montage?

Hi Mike,

I agree 100% with what Pete said below (all those years of experience/work in NF at its best :-) )

I do a before/after "mind mirror" type of analysis for every session and this gives a fairly clear picture of what goes on inside one's head. Most of those who come for NF training do show a right dominance over left. This is particularly true for the 12-15Hz. A window squash on the left side for this frequency is the most obvious intervention as, on the whole, it's always better to have the left side slightly higher than the right. Then (and this is where I tend to differ from all other) do a coherence left/right in order to balance both sides (the brain likes balance and "be ready" for processing any kind of input).

To conclude, when you say "which is the preferred training regimen" it depends on many factors. But do try to have some base from where you can work from. The "mind mirror" type of analysis is a good start and does not delay too much the NF's session, even if you have qEEGs and other newer EEG analysis

Bye for now,

-----

Alvoeiro,Ph.D(Hull,UK),C.Psychol/AFBPsS(BPS,UK)

2000-119 Santarem,

Portugal

E-mail: jorge.alvoeiro@...

http://jorge0alvoeiro.no.sapo.pt/

De: em nome de pvdtlcEnviada: qua 01-08-2012 11:37Para: Assunto: Re: Re: Frequency (2 channel common ref.) or "phase" Bipolar montage?

Mike,

If you have information that indicates a lower than "norm" phase relationship in a frequency between two sites (i.e. you've done a QEEG), and you have reason to believe that the phase synchrony between those sites in that/those frequencies is linked to the issues the client wants to change, and if you don't have a way to do a 2-channel phase/coherence training in that frequency between those sites (which you do if you use BE with the TLC designs and probably many others), then your best alternative is to train a one-channel bipolar montage between the sites at that frequency, increasing or decreasing depending on whether you want to increase or decrease phase angle.

If the problem is a control problem, as it very often is, and as you can quite clearly see looking at the EEG--that is, there is excessive amplitude or variability at a site or in an area--then training amplitude, usually to decrease, is probably a more useful approach.

I recognize the attractiveness of the idea of an S.O.P. or recipe approach in a world where you are dealing with all the complexities of the brain and digital signal processing (not to mention the psychology of a client and the system in which he/she lives). If you find one that works much of the time for you, then use it. I haven't (though I've tried a number of them from Mike Tansey's 14Hz training in the 90's through LENS and NeuroOptimal--or whatever Val Brown's system is called these days, through the early Othmers' menu driven sets). But that's me. I always read with interest 's posts on the list here, and I've found Noel's variations on the early Othmer stuff interesting, and I find 's posts informative and interesting. But I have found over the years that looking at the brain for symmetry and synchrony relatioinships, amplitude patterns, etc. and then producing a set of options that seem likely to move it in the desired direction, then spending a few sessions testing them to see what actually makes the client experience improvement is--while perhaps more demanding of the trainer--is most likely to produce positive effects that last within a fairly short period of time. And when something doesn't work, I have an idea why that happened and it informs my choices of what to do next.

Love to hear how your efforts work out.

Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM, chiapetfarmer <chiapetfarmer@...> wrote:

Thanks for your earlier response. Just to get a practical modus operandi, would you generally train for "phase" (bipolar montage) on 2 intra-hemispheric locations, and then subsequently work toward leveling or aligning independent bandwiths (second approach - 2 channel monopolar montage)once you have a further idea of what the client is presenting or has concern about? Is this a level approach or is there a general rule of thumb?

August 1, 2012

I certainly agree with 's discourse about phase and synchrony training here. With that being said, in my practice I do see some instances where phase training is warranted over the long haul. Typically in Autistic Spectrum issues where there are disconnects on the right side (i.e. F3 or Fz to T4 or T6) prolonged coherence training to connect these portions of the brain offer better emotional stability, gestalt and recognition of self and empathy to this population. I have been willing to perform 40 sessions plus with this population with excellent results.