NeuroFeedback, NeurOptimal and Electroencephalography

Been keeping up with the thread and it's amazing all the experiences you guys have shared! Thank you everyone for sharing all your experiences. It sounds like it's going to be an interesting ride when I get the chance to this. The other day I was looking at a video about something called Halo Sport, Dave Asprey from the Bulletproof business did a podcast on this, but this was mainly about exercising while stimulating your motor cortex. I just thought it was an interesting video FWIW. So can't wait to try NO and i'll keep you posted when I do :-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMM
Perhaps you could take a look at this thread:
Session 14 April 2018
where we did a channeling session with the NO system hooked up. Not the training part, just the baseline measuring part.

Hi Laura, a pleasure to connect to you.

Well that was an interesting idea (to hook someone up during a channelling session).

My response to the readings may be disappointing, but we may as well dispel some myths about NeurOptimal.

So I will need to give this some context before giving a very brief answer to your question.

All neurofeedback machines on the market, other than NeurOptimal function in a linear way ( a few make non linear claims but that is marketing hype).

So, the idea behind linear neurofeedback is that you take measurement of the electrical activity of the brain in terms of frequency and amplitude, in various locations of the brain. You then compare these readings to a “normative” database and make a diagnosis. On that basis you create a treatment protocol in which certain areas of the brain have their frequencies and amplitudes up or down trained, towards a “norm”.

Sounds scientific? Absolutely not!

Why? Firstly because the brain with 100 billion brain cells (neurons) is non linear in nature (it is a complex non linear dynamical system (now studied as a branch of physics – in nature, almost all systems are of this type). The interesting thing about dynamical non linear systems is that they produce synergistic effects and have their own “intelligence”.

So to attempt to regulate such a complex system in such a simple way is going to produce limited results, side effects and highly irregular effects. For example you may remove ADHD and at the same time destroy a child’s creativity. This is essentially the approach that modern medicine has gone down where mind and body are separate and individual body parts have their own specialist doctors. The idea that you can manipulate electrical activity in certain areas of the brain without that having a wider implication for the rest of the brain (good or bad) is very short sighted. And it assumes that the technician applying the feedback has a profound grasp of the workings of the brain. Once this is understood, you will see the huge danger of brain entrainment or the cheap devices (e.g. Muse) now on the market.
Secondly, the idea of a “normal” brain is typical of linear thinking. There is no such thing. Who would want to have their brain trained towards an average? Brains are adaptive and display different behaviour depending upon the environment they are in and the challenges they are dealing with.

Drs Val and Sue Brown came into the neurofeedback game in the 90’s (Val Brown was a clinical director in a hospital and was asked to investigate the possibilities of Neurofeedback). They trained and experimented extensively with linear neurofeedback. (at the time, the technology was very limited – computer processor was slow and signal processing equipment was quite primitive – for example only one side of the brain could be trained).

But Val is a mathematical genius (he is a clinical psychologist by profession) and he already had non linear ideas. These were furthered through his association with Dr Karl Pribham – another genius who conceived of the brain as being holographic in nature – he termed this holonomic).

As Val developed standardised neurofeedback protocols (e.g. he discovered that almost of trauma is associated with 3hz so he aimed to suppress it in all clients) he started to notice that at some stage in the session, the brain started to regulate itself and no longer needed to be pushed in any particular direction. He realised that the brain regulated itself far better than he could regulate it through specific protocols. At the same time, his wife Sue discovered that it was possible to train both brain hemispheres simultaneously. Neurocare, NeurOptimal’s predecessor was born out of these discoveries. It was the first attempt, based partly on the mathematics of non linear dynamics, to create algorithms that could provide information to the self regulating intelligence of the brain, so that the brain could better recognise its own activity and adapt to it holistically.

In the world of neurofeedback this was a mega breakthrough, as this now allowed for safe and profound brain training, without the need for a trainer to make choices about what a client’s brain should be doing. It also allowed for a much more profound training without needing to target any specific problems a client was having. I will also add that Neurocare was still a semi manual system in it standard mode, though it could also be used in full manual mode, meaning the operator could still play around with variables.
You would think this invention would have been welcomed in the world of neurofeedback. Not so! As a new paradigm it was strongly rejected, though more holistic thinking doctors and psychologists started to experiment with it. This has not significantly changed!
In order to placate many of the psychologists who were experimenting, Val built in the manual mode and built in some analysis tools – essentially the ones you still see in NO2.

These analysis tools by nature are linear, and measure only what is happening right now in a linear way. As most of the trainers using the system were still linear in their thinking, they loved the tools and developed all kinds of myths about them – many of which are still around today. These myths were communicated to clients and their brains were interpreted according to linear concepts. Very little of it had any truth. (e.g. there is a lot of red on the screen – it means you are angry).
Then, nearly 10 years ago, NO2 was brought out. This was the first fully automated non linear dynamical neurofeedback system, capable of bringing about profound change on every level for a human being (or even some animals). It made it suitable for home or office training because the trainer was no longer essential (trainers do play other roles). This left many “expert” trainers twiddling their thumbs – so in order to convince their clients of their expertise and importance, they went to town on the analysis tools – some giving clients printouts – some make wild claims about the poor health of client’s brains etc. There are still many of these trainers around.
And in all of this, there was another factor which was often totally throwing any analysis of track: line noise. Line noise is any electrical activity within the vicinity of training – e.g. power points, overhead lighting, sometimes the client themselves. Zengar had built in algorithms into NO2 so that the training would ignore line noise. But the baselines could not filter it out. So you would see post baselines with CCACs of 500+ and trainers would tell their clients that their brain was very disturbed when actually it was line noise they were seeing.

It should also be said that Val and Sue as founders are not business people. Their motive was and is to remove human suffering. They were not trying to control how NO2 was being used. They invented a machine and offered it to the public (that has now changed – there are set training programmes, Representatives are carefully chosen, and Zengar now want NO to be used with a similar message and understanding).

The baselines remained in NO2 largely to keep some of the traditional neurofeedback practitioners on board. But several years ago, Val announced that they were totally unsuitable as a means of measuring how well a session went, or how much progress a client was making. Trainers were advised to stop running baselines. They made no difference to how the training would be given – because the expertise is in the software. Instead, progress was to be measured through in depth client interviews, tracking their progress based on the client’s own experience. This is also much more empowering to the clients. (Zengar have a set of documents to help measure client progress – I have my own much more extensive approach).

Of course, while a session is running, you also have a display showing all of the frequencies, targets and time frequency envelops. You can see from this in general terms if a client has a lot of 3hz or 5 hz (bad theta) or a lot of alpha or even gamma. And you might have ideas from this about their state of mental health. But you would really need huge experience to accurately predict anything and you need to bear in mind that this is not what NO is designed for.

NO is four dimensional. It is designed to analyse cortical activity within time frequency envelopes to detect change using time, frequency, amplitude and shifts. Essentially it alerts the brain when it is about to move into a different phase and it gives the brain the opportunity of interrupting the phase shift or not. This leads to greater resilience and flexibility and an optimised brain. All of this within the context of the self regulating intelligence of the brain, and changes that are happening holistically, dynamically and in a non linear way, so that the whole brain can integrate any changes that do take place, including any snowball effect.

NO3, recently launched, is based on the same, though with improved signal processing and more attention to higher frequencies. The baselines and analysis tools associated with them have been removed. They have been replaced by baselines extracted from the sessions and some non linear analysis tools which are no longer disturbed by line noise. However, Val has stressed that the tools are more for interest and still only give information about that moment of time. It is not possible to extrapolate data about client progress from them.
So that has been a lot of background to explain what I need to say about the channelled sessions and the baselines.
Almost certainly, from what I am seeing, the baselines are hugely disturbed by line noise and are therefore are not valid. And of course, when channelling is going on, all kinds of frequencies will be in the room which will be quite different to human EEG and which will show up as line noise.

Furthermore, with a lot of people in the room and a lot of talking etc, even the session may not run well because the brain will only reconfigure itself if it feels safe to do so. Competing energies in the room, some of which will be picked up by mirror neurons, could limit efficacy.

Though, what I would be interested in, is, was the result of the session, in any way different than usual – did the channelling increase or decrease efficacy. Did the channeling impact the ability of the brain to better self regulate?
 
The NO personal rental unit that I was waiting on has finally been returned and I picked it up today. I did a short snapshot session on the practitioners professional unit - 30 seconds with eyes open and 30 seconds with eyes closed. He went through the different frequencies and of what they may mean and how them being out of whack might present themselves. It was really interesting what he could tell from the snapshot. One of the big take aways for me was that I became more vigilant with my eyes closed! He indicated that this could contribute to my difficulties falling asleep. As he was finishing up the talk I realised that I should have taped him because there was a lot of handy information. He is a psychologist and has worked with neuro-feedback since 1997 and said that once the NO system was developed, he thought that it would be in every practice inside 5 years. In any case I was astounded about what he was telling me about myself from a one minute reading of my brainwaves.

He said that he probably won't upgrade to the new version 3 of the software. According to him it's misinformation that the new version will have fewer graphs and measurements. He said that all that functionality is still there in the new version, just in different formats. His reason for not upgrading is that with version 2 you could source your own lap top, desktop or tablet for a better deal than what you pay through NO, however with version 3 you buy the lap top, desktop or tablet from NO with the software already loaded, but the hardware is at an inflated price.

He also said that the reason why music works better or is more efficient is because there are fewer gaps in the sound like there might be in speech in movies. So he'd prefer his clients to watch music dvd's rather than movies, though he didn't belabour the point.

One question I thought of last night and totally forgot to ask him today was this: If you listened to the same music for each and every session, could that music become an anchor - in the classical conditioning sense - for the brainwaves to shift back to an optimal pattern without getting the neuro - feedback? If so, then perhaps the music alone could serve as a top up after the NO sessions have been used to their maximum benefit.


It has never been possible - either with versions 1.98 or 2 to just buy the software and buy your own hardware. I have seen Dr Val Brown respond to the point about Zengar inflating pricing on the hardware to increase their profit. Certainly, the price is inflated for replacements. But Val has always said that Zengar will only support software that has been installed by them on hardware they have purchased. This is because of the complications of installing what is "precision" software. A large cost for Zengar is technical support, and given the necessity for perfectly functioning hardware and software, this is not a cost they cut down on. The bulk of the cost of a system is the software licensing, which is a one off purchase. Perhaps a day will come when NeurOptimal becomes available on other platforms at a fraction of the cost. Val's state purpose has been to reduce human suffering. Certainly, from what I know of him, he is not in it for the money. Most of the profits of recent years have been ploughed back into the 5-year development of NO5 with a large development team. It also needs to be said that Zengar is by no means a perfect company! It was not set up by business people - instead they are growing organically and encountering the typical problems that growing businesses set up by tech people encounter.


With regards to could the music replace future top-up sessions because of the potential for operant conditioning. Absolutely no. Of course, some level of operant conditioning will take place by repeating the music, just as they may well be a level of placebo. But NO differs from other neurofeedback in that it is not using operant conditioning to change the brain. It is using mathematical algorithms dynamically calculated based on real time brain activity which is fed back to the change detecting function of the brain and integrated by the self-regulating function of the brain. Operant conditioning simply can not come close to the kind of changes that will bring about. And you will not achieve stable optimisation through operant conditioning - operant conditioning tends to create states whereas NO creates optimal dynamics.

I guess I know the psychologist you are referring to. I would have a lot of respect for him and he generally knows his stuff.

I would refer you to my post of today with regards to interpretation of data and the running of baselines. I would really recommend that you write down extensive information about how well you function, any problems, goals, sleep, focus, success, happiness etc and measure changes to that. This will give you a much better measurement of what NO is doing. The deeper transformation is not so obvious because it starts with becoming more present, having a deeper connection to the underlying process and current of life and then experiencing changes which seem to have nothing to do with NO but would not have happened without it.
 
Wow! I've been catching up with this thread and I'm so happy to read all the improvements so many are experiencing! What a blessing indeed. :clap:

And also, I guess I'm not just imagining the improvement I feel in myself too because it's pretty similar to what some of you have been reporting, although I've only had 10 sessions so far. I feel so different sometimes that it's almost as if I'm another person, although I do notice that some of the "new" I see has always been there, but I was completely holding it because I was afraid all the time. In general it's just a general courage to speak my mind, make jokes, less feeling of dread and catastrophic imagination, having more contact with my emotions in what I would call a more positive way... because I can notice better what I'm actually feeling and have more acceptance of it without it being overwhelming or something to shut down because of fear (again). Also, not so much guilt. I also noticed better focus and retention of information, which for me is huge because I always had the feeling that my brain didn't work very well and I couldn't focus or retain a lot of information.

I do notice that sometimes NO seems to leave me a little too hyperactive (not in an anxious way but more like wanting to do too many things and think about things) and maybe it will be good to find some balance in that aspect. I have trouble sleeping some nights (which I very rarely had before). It's like my brain is hyperactive and I can't sleep until very late, or, I sleep but it seems that my mind was still so active while sleeping that I didn't really rest. I'm also having lots of dreams when I do sleep. I think that if I do more physical activity I might be able to improve my sleeping, so I'll try that.

I also notice lots of back and forth from "not-so-afraid-and-anxious" to "very-afraid-and-anxious" + gloomy states. But when I'm in those anxious/gloomy states, it's easier to deal with them as others have pointed out. Sometimes it feels like a whole different way of being, so that in itself brings a bit of anxiety for me, because still having my old way seeing things, I'm trying to figure out this new way of seeing things, I guess. I suppose here is where the process of working and reading and networking comes too, which is very important, IMO.

All in all, I'm VERY thankful for the NO, the changes for me have been great, even if there are plenty of things coming up that are a bit depressing, and there's much that I need to balance and work on still. I feel more alive and authentic now, and that's really something.

When NeurOptimal is tuning up the brain, it often has to break up what are like bad sectors on a hard drive. It can then take the brain a little while to holistically integrate those changes. So it is not uncommon for people to report temporary sleep disturbances, or hyper states or even states of not been able to function for a little while. These are not side effects, but the signs of a brain readjusting. As the brain becomes more stable and resilient, such signs tend to fall away. For example, one client with depression noticed that what she described as her perfect sleep changed dramatically with initial waking up and sleep seeming to not so deep. The depression gradually lifted and the sleep then returned to continuous all night long but the client woke up feeling much more awake. Probably, despite seeming to sleep deeply, her sleep cycles were lacking enough REM and they had to be re-ordered through the information provided by NO. Similarly, a doctor I trained a while ago, who was very stressed felt so relaxed during the first 5 weeks of NO training that he said it was not possible to work efficiently. Later, once he had recovered enough, he found he could work in a very relaxed and focused way with much greater efficiency.
 
Val's state purpose has been to reduce human suffering. Certainly, from what I know of him, he is not in it for the money.

If so did Val publish any papers on his work? There are many people who would never afford NO system from Zengar but would benefit from knowledge about creating similar system.
 
If so did Val publish any papers on his work? There are many people who would never afford NO system from Zengar but would benefit from knowledge about creating similar system.

That would seem to be a very valid point. The true test of altruism! I have never asked him if he will do that at some stage. He certainly has spoken in depth about the underlying assumptions, the non-linear mathematics, but not the precise algorithms. I do not know what the complexities of revealing his life's work would be - as in would NeurOptimal be undermined by cheaper copies with poorer performance or less exacting standards etc. It is not just a question of making and selling a system - it is also about having the processes in place to educate people about it and to provide tech support. Zengar is doing a good job of that now. But, agreed. It would be wonderful if it were more affordable and available to everyone. It needs to be in every school, business, home etc. It will be interesting to see what Val and Sue's final legacy will be. They are hitting retirement age now.
 
After reading the first 7 pages and the current page of this thread, I am sold on NeurOptimal. Now I will need to figure out how to rent one or access one. I will also need to see if NeurOptimal is safe for children. I will finish reading this thread and also go through Healing Developmental Trauma.
 
But, agreed. It would be wonderful if it were more affordable and available to everyone. It needs to be in every school, business, home etc.

Totally agree with that.
I will also need to see if NeurOptimal is safe for children

Well, all I can say is that we used NO on 2 children with high difficulties and one is still using it and the results are very good.
 
Last edited:
I will also need to see if NeurOptimal is safe for children

Yes it safe with children and young babies. The reason is that it is not imposing anything on the brain. It is simply giving information which happens via the micro pauses in the music. The brain itself with its intrinsic wisdom decides what to do with that information. And the intrinsic wisdom is always about maintaining the integrity and homeostasis of the system. As Val Brown says, " everyone has a right to receive information about their own brain - that is what NO does."
 
When NeurOptimal is tuning up the brain, it often has to break up what are like bad sectors on a hard drive. It can then take the brain a little while to holistically integrate those changes. So it is not uncommon for people to report temporary sleep disturbances, or hyper states or even states of not been able to function for a little while. These are not side effects, but the signs of a brain readjusting. As the brain becomes more stable and resilient, such signs tend to fall away. For example, one client with depression noticed that what she described as her perfect sleep changed dramatically with initial waking up and sleep seeming to not so deep. The depression gradually lifted and the sleep then returned to continuous all night long but the client woke up feeling much more awake. Probably, despite seeming to sleep deeply, her sleep cycles were lacking enough REM and they had to be re-ordered through the information provided by NO. Similarly, a doctor I trained a while ago, who was very stressed felt so relaxed during the first 5 weeks of NO training that he said it was not possible to work efficiently. Later, once he had recovered enough, he found he could work in a very relaxed and focused way with much greater efficiency.

Very interesting! Yes, I heard Dr.Val say something along the lines of "think of it as 'defragging' your brain" in an interview. I thought that was a good analogy. I'm also one of those that had sleep disturbances. I didn't have problems falling asleep or sleeping the night, but in the morning it was like I just stayed up all night. It was mentally exhausting. They started from around sessions 3 onwards (I've done 12 so far). In your experience, what is the average time (or number of sessions) it takes to push through those? Or is there too much variation, so it could be anything? It would take me about 5 or 6 days before I'd feel like I could get an ok night's sleep before doing another session.

I was at first doing them twice a week but went to once a week because of that. I've also heard it that it takes about 20 sessions before one starts to integrate the changes, although I was noticing some benefits around the same time the sleep issues started. I guess what I'm asking is if it would be better to do the sessions closer together and push through it or take it slowly? I think that the intense 'phase' of the session can also be shortened. There is also a longer 45 min one as well, which I did for my 12th. I noticed that during that session I 'zoned out' whereas that didn't happen during the 30 min ones. Still had sleep issues but it wasn't as bad as it was. So now I'm trying to figure out the best way to go about it, whether it be a time/frequency thing or if there's something else I could try.
 
Thanks for clarifying the points I raised.

With regards to could the music replace future top-up sessions because of the potential for operant conditioning. Absolutely no. Of course, some level of operant conditioning will take place by repeating the music, just as they may well be a level of placebo. But NO differs from other neurofeedback in that it is not using operant conditioning to change the brain. It is using mathematical algorithms dynamically calculated based on real time brain activity which is fed back to the change detecting function of the brain and integrated by the self-regulating function of the brain. Operant conditioning simply can not come close to the kind of changes that will bring about. And you will not achieve stable optimisation through operant conditioning - operant conditioning tends to create states whereas NO creates optimal dynamics.
.

My mention of conditioning wasn't about operant conditioning though - it was classical conditioning. Operant conditioning basically governs the visible forms of behaviours through a system of punishers and reinforcers. Classical conditioning is where a stimulus that is neutral is given some value by pairing it with a stimulus that already has value. Classical conditioning is more involved in intrinsic processes - feelings, emotions, biological processes and involuntary reactions. Pavlovs dogs for example - the sound of the bell didn't have any value or impact on them until it was paired with the delivery of food. After being paired with the delivery of food, the dogs would salivate and get excited in anticipation of the delivery of food when they heard the bell. The more I think about it, the more I think that it may be possible that the music alone could prompt the brain to return to optimal level after sufficient successful pairings with the NO system, the music and the brain calming down.

I do however say this with the caveat that I really don't have the knowledge to affirm this in this particular area.
 
Had my fifth session yesterday. It was the fist time with NO version 3. I enjoyed the music a lot more, and I feel like it did a better job of catching certain things and training my brain. Today I feel very relaxed and focused at the same time. Words I read on a page just leap into my brain and stay there. The last couple of weeks have been a little more emotional than normal for me, so it's been a welcome boost.

I waited awhile between my 4th and 5th, and I was told that around the 4th and 6th session is when some deeper things can begin to be churned up. I've been feeling a little more vulnerable and low energy than normal (especially after the 4th) for awhile, and a part of me wonders if I started some kind of "defragmenting" process but it's been more arduous and slow-going than necessary due to my break from NO?
 
When NeurOptimal is tuning up the brain, it often has to break up what are like bad sectors on a hard drive. It can then take the brain a little while to holistically integrate those changes. So it is not uncommon for people to report temporary sleep disturbances, or hyper states or even states of not been able to function for a little while. These are not side effects, but the signs of a brain readjusting. As the brain becomes more stable and resilient, such signs tend to fall away. For example, one client with depression noticed that what she described as her perfect sleep changed dramatically with initial waking up and sleep seeming to not so deep. The depression gradually lifted and the sleep then returned to continuous all night long but the client woke up feeling much more awake. Probably, despite seeming to sleep deeply, her sleep cycles were lacking enough REM and they had to be re-ordered through the information provided by NO. Similarly, a doctor I trained a while ago, who was very stressed felt so relaxed during the first 5 weeks of NO training that he said it was not possible to work efficiently. Later, once he had recovered enough, he found he could work in a very relaxed and focused way with much greater efficiency.

Thanks a LOT for your answer choepel, and for the exposition you wrote before it, it's all super interesting and very helpful! For me, these sleep disturbances started quite early in the training to. But they don't bother me that much because the benefits are so great so far that it's a price I can pay... :-) What I noticed is that I generally feel very sleepy on the day I did the session, I sleep very early and much more hours than usual on that night. The second night after the session is normally OK and then the sleeping issues start again until I go to my next session. I think that's interesting... it's like my brain is working throughout the week after the session (I do it once a week only and unfortunately I can't do it more often to try if it's better that way).

In reply to your excellent exposition, I'd say that my practitioner seems to be the type that isn't very interested on the baseline and graphs, even though she's actually a neuro-psychologist. She looks at the graphs and shows them to me but mostly because I find them interesting and want to see them. She generally asks me how I'm feeling, how was my week, if I'm "producing" more (like writing or playing music) and she seems to notice intuitively that even though I'm generally calmer, there's still some of this background anxiety to work with. Yesterday she told me that she noticed a lot more alpha waves activity than before, which is good according to her.

I had my 11th session yesterday and I feel a lot calmer than the previous weeks this time, so I'll see how this week goes on.
 
I had my 20th session on Wednesday. The trainer I'm working with combined the extended session with craniosacral treatment. All I can say is it was even more amazing than NO on its own. There was very little movement of her hands but there was a lot of movement of the energy in my body. I still don't understand a lot of what happened but it was powerful. What came to mind was the difference between electric energy messages as opposed to the chemical messengers idea. She said that the fascia sends a pulse 10 times per minute. I have a lot of questions, but did not want to start asking until I've digested more of what transpired. I've been working with her long enough to trust her integrity and knowledge. I could not have worked at this level when I started the NO. She said I was releasing at a cellular level and the NO was scooping it up and processing it as it released. I asked why we didn't start this sooner and she told me we needed to wait until I could keep my eyes closed for the entire session (the abating hypervigilance) which happened a couple of sessions ago.
 
If so did Val publish any papers on his work? There are many people who would never afford NO system from Zengar but would benefit from knowledge about creating similar system.
He said in one of the interviews that the Math behind NO will never become public.
 
Back
Top Bottom