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?
