Archive for the ‘Clinical’ Category


Thursday, August 5th, 2010

The authors refer to errors in energy expenditure that interfere with nervous system function, i.e. the notion of inefficiency, resulting in reduction of the organisms productivity and disturbance of its emotional reactivity, ideation, and central regulation of various organs of the body.The Dysponesis Hypothesis
We are always casting about for better ways to frame the work that we do in order to make it comprehensible to other professionals and lay persons. Sometime it helps to dip into past history to see how others wrestled with the same issue. One notion that has threaded its way through is that of simple inefficiency in brain regulatory function, which naturally leads to the suggestion that our training improves regulatory effectiveness through promoting higher efficiency in the regulatory mechanisms. It’s a simple concept with a certain amount of face validity, and also offers the virtue of vagueness where we are still uncertain about the details. Another slightly different theme is that the brain sometimes works against itself, that its efforts to right the ship are sometimes counter-productive.

The term dysponesis encompasses a variety of dysfunctions in which the CNS operates counter to the desired end-result. In considering the possible utility of this term in modern parlance, I am going back to an article written by George Whatmore and Daniel Kohli back in 1968 (Behavioral Science, 13(2), 102-124, (1968)), and reprinted as a book chapter in the text Mind/Body Integration (Erik Peper, Sonia Ancoli, and Michelle Quinn, editors), which was first published in 1979. The authors were two physicians in private practice.


The Individualization of Training

Thursday, February 8th, 2007

Sue Othmer - Neurofeedback TrainingThe individualization of training has had a long history in neurofeedback. It began perhaps with Joel Lubar’s choosing whether to reinforce the standard SMR band of 12-15Hz or the low-beta band of 15-18 Hz, or whether to do both in pursuit of different objectives in work with ADD/ADHD children. At our hands, it eventually became a matter of choosing whether a person should train “SMR” at C4 or “beta” at C3, or perhaps a mixture of both. There seemed to be a general tendency toward lower-frequency training at the right hemisphere. We were able to address hemisphere-specific function in a more optimized way, and we could modulate arousal level more flexibly with the two available choices.

The two standard bands had both been given currency by Barry Sterman’s early work, and we took them as a given. The SMR band acquired a kind of usage validity over time, and the beta band could be considered a vernier. Margaret Ayers used the beta band almost exclusively in those early days, principally for working with head injury, and for her the SMR band was the vernier. The beta band was for nudging the under-aroused head-injured and ADD people (the Satterfield model) into better functionality, and the SMR band was for general calming of over-arousal. (more…)


Subscribe to Email Newsletter

The EEG Info Newsletter circulates via email at least once a month. A variety of topics related to the Neurofeedback / EEG Biofeedback field are covered in over 200 articles.
* Email
First Name
Last Name
* = Required Field
I hereby allow EEG Info permission to send messages to me via email as means of communication as indicated by my signing up for this email newsletter.