NeuroFeedback, NeurOptimal and Electroencephalography

[Ennio]

I checked out a place today that offers NeurOptimal called Quantify Fitness. They also do HIIT Body by Science workouts that they advertise as a ten minute workout once a week. They have specialized equipment with computers that monitor TUL, total force exerted throughout the exercise, etc. And they offer FIR Sauna's and that's it!

Well that's interesting! Good information probably 'travels' in packets, patterns or in connections to other things... At the same time, there seem to be very few holistic healing/fitness places that address body, mind AND detoxification at this level that I've heard of. Too bad its so pricey. Keep looking though, I'm sure something will turn up!

 

[Chu]

Hello choepel, I have a question.

I have done a bit of digging and if I understood well, the very principle of NO is based upon the fact that our brain is hard wired to react to a sudden change in our environment. When this happen, our brain stop its task to focus on the change. NO exploit this (by interrupting the listened sound), so learn to "remove" turbulences of neurons by negative feedback (correct me if I'm wrong).

So, don't we have to practice NO on a large set of circumstances?

I mean, don't we have to practice NO when doing math for example so the brain learn to calm down turbulences generated only when doing math? An so on...

I don't know that we absolutely HAVE TO, but I think it's interesting to change task while doing NO. I somethings meditate, at other times I study, and sometimes I read a book. But you can't be doing NO while driving or working out, for example, yet that may be another situation in which some people have "turbulences", as you called them.

AFAIK, the idea is not necessarily to provide the person with negative feedback, but rather, with just a change to make your brain reassess situations instead of running automatically on mechanical pathways.

I think that NO focuses on ingrained patterns that we have developed regardless of the activity we are performing, so I would guess that no, it's not necessary to change tasks while doing this training.

Check this post, for a better explanation: NeuroFeedback and Electroencephalography

 

[choepel]

Hello choepel, I have a question.

I have done a bit of digging and if I understood well, the very principle of NO is based upon the fact that our brain is hard wired to react to a sudden change in our environment. When this happen, our brain stop its task to focus on the change. NO exploit this (by interrupting the listened sound), so learn to "remove" turbulences of neurons by negative feedback (correct me if I'm wrong).

So, don't we have to practice NO on a large set of circumstances?

I mean, don't we have to practice NO when doing math for example so the brain learn to calm down turbulences generated only when doing math? An so on...

This is a really good question, I am always amazed how few people ask it.

But in brief, NO - we don't need to be in a dysfunctional state while doing NeurOptimal for it to be effective. In fact, the best state to be in when doing NeurOptimal is a relatively neutral state - just passively listening to the music or watching the movie.

To explain a little (the full explanation becomes very technical) and to clarify the "turbulence" idea:

Val has really only ever explained in broad strokes how NO works. He has not revealed the precise mathematics nor the precise calculations of the auto-threshholding in the various time frequency envelopes and Zen stages. But he has explained the essential ideas:

Zengar used to use the term "turbulence" to describe the sudden and large variation of electrical activity being detected by NO. It has now been renamed "fluttering". But NO is not trying to reduce turbulence. Turbulence is being used to detect "significant phase changes. (a phase is more in line with the language of non-linear dynamics as opposed to state changes which would the language of linear processes). A phase change, for example, is going from the awake state to the sleep state. Or going for a calm state in the present to an anxious state related to the past. It can also be positive - going from a calm state to a very active vigilant state because something is requiring our attention. NO simply alerts the brain when such significant phase changes are about to happen but have not happened yet. And by returning the brain to the present, the brain's intelligence is given the opportunity to reassess whether the phase shift is necessary and whether it can be done using less energy and resources.

We could also say that the various dysfunctional phase changes that take place in daily life, are already present within the brain as a non-linear system, and will reveal themselves sooner or later during the brain training, without needing to be specifically targeted.

The brain training will also, in general, make the brain more resilient and flexible which in turn will enable it to handle phase changes better.

Finally, during a brain training, NO is working with 20 time-frequency envelopes (frequency, amplitude, time and shifts being measured dynamically and being interrupted based on auto thresholds calculated by comparing the brain's own activity). The emphasis of these differs according to Zen 1 - 4 and some, for example, put more emphasis on the low frequencies - especially 3 and 5 hz which are known to cause a large percentage of psychological dysfunction.

 

[choepel]

I mean, don't we have to practice NO when doing math for example so the brain learn to calm down turbulences generated only when doing math? An so on...

This just reminded me of a client I worked with recently: a mature student doing a science degree with a terror of mathematics and statistics. Her only reason for attending NO training was to become free of the fear. The bonus would be if she could actually understand the statistics she needed to do (she said that the moment she had to do numbers her mind would freeze and she had never managed to learn anything of significance in maths).

We only ever did three sessions: 2 of NO2 and 1 of NO3. The sessions were done with the standard music whilst she just relaxed.

After the 2nd session, she said she felt an unbelievable calm and the thought of having to learn statistics no longer worried her. She then went off to have a 3-hour private tutoring session to learn the essentials. When she came for her third session she said she had been able to stay calm during the lesson and actually understand what was being said. But now it was quickly being forgotten.

The third session changed that. Now she is calm, has an essential grasp of what she needs to know and is now studying in more depth and retaining the learnings. She also said that in 3 sessions she had got rid of a lifelong background anxiety and hypervigilance. The last session was 5 weeks ago (we were using the NO3 Beta test for the last session) and I met her last Saturday at a social event and the good results were still getting better.

 

[Ellipse]

Thanks choepel for your detailed answer and Chu too. You really know well he system, it's a pleasure to have your insights

Note that my original message should read:

so NO learn to "remove" turbulences

but you correct by yourself.

NO simply alerts the brain when such significant phase changes are about to happen but have not happened yet

I was no aware of that. So there's a pattern recognition that a particular state will happen. Impressive. The system anticipate. So now I understand better how it can be fast enough to alert the brain. I guess Vald and Sue had to decipher a lot of EEG before knowing to what signals to rely on.

This just reminded me of a client I worked with recently: a mature student doing a science degree with a terror of mathematics and statistics.

Yeah but blockages that you describe for this person (fear, anxiety), are what I would name "common" blockages. But sometime in specific task, even when you're trained, you missed the target. So this is why I was asking myself if NO need to be used under those specials circumstances where specific brain activity can only be meet.

Now I have another question which is a bit more provocative.

How do we know that, by alerting the brain of an incoming fluttering, and so, giving it the opportunity to change its behaviour, we do not have side effects like "smoothing" the brain and so losing in creativity for example.

Let me take a situation: you are watching a movie and at a moment you brain dissociate. It start running in background with totally unrelated thoughts with the movie. Perhaps just because while watching the movie you make an association of ideas and so you start processing those ideas in the background, always watching the movie but paying less close attention, and sometime the background processing end up with an interesting idea.

How do I know that NO will not train my brain to suppress this capacity, because it can be view as a fluttering finally. It rely on the judgment of the person who programmed the NO. It could be legitimated to think that the goal is to stay focused on the movie.

Thanks by advance.

 

[hlat]

How do we know that, by alerting the brain of an incoming fluttering, and so, giving it the opportunity to change its behaviour, we do not have side effects like "smoothing" the brain and so losing in creativity for example.

I think this is a really good point and concern. I can even imagine nefarious CIA moles infiltrating the company and putting MKULTRA backdoors into the program. So how can we trust that the black box program does good and not harm to us? I think we have to look at the results and see whether people are improving, getting better, regressing, or being harmed. I think we also have to consider the knowledge we have on the topic, such as developmental trauma that seemingly has few effective treatment options. Beyond the temporary detox type effects, it seems people are getting benefits, and I intend to get NeurOptimal for my whole family.

 

[Jones]

I think this is a really good point and concern. I can even imagine nefarious CIA moles infiltrating the company and putting MKULTRA backdoors into the program. So how can we trust that the black box program does good and not harm to us? I think we have to look at the results and see whether people are improving, getting better, regressing, or being harmed. I think we also have to consider the knowledge we have on the topic, such as developmental trauma that seemingly has few effective treatment options. Beyond the temporary detox type effects, it seems people are getting benefits, and I intend to get NeurOptimal for my whole family.

That was what was kind of running in the background for me when I wondered why they would take out the analytics.

Today isn't a great day for me so far. I don't feel good at all. My ears are screaming and gut churning with panic. A huge difference from yesterday when I felt more relaxed. I didn't do a session yesterday because of an appointment I had and I also didn't get time alone in the house to do the program - my ears could be playing up because I forgot to take my earplugs with me into a noisy environment when I went for my appointment though - and it isn't unusual for me to feel very unsettled in the stomach when my ears are playing up. I'll be doing another session later this afternoon.

 

[choepel]

s of

Now I have another question which is a bit more provocative.

How do we know that, by alerting the brain of an incoming fluttering, and so, giving it the opportunity to change its behaviour, we do not have side effects like "smoothing" the brain and so losing in creativity for example.

Let me take a situation: you are watching a movie and at a moment you brain dissociate. It start running in background with totally unrelated thoughts with the movie. Perhaps just because while watching the movie you make an association of ideas and so you start processing those ideas in the background, always watching the movie but paying less close attention, and sometime the background processing end up with an interesting idea.

How do I know that NO will not train my brain to suppress this capacity, because it can be view as a fluttering finally. It rely on the judgment of the person who programmed the NO. It could be legitimated to think that the goal is to stay focused on the movie.

I come back to my early post on this forum answering Laura's initial enquiry in which I explained about non linear dynamical neurofeedback.

NO is designed to give information to the brain in a similar way to which the brain processes information itself. The brain notices change and it is that noticing in general that prompts the brain to do what it does. NO, with mathematical algorithms expands the brain's ability to notice change and therewith enables the innate intelligence of the brain to respond from the basis of having more information.

So this is quite different than linear ideas where we just connect a brain to some software that directs it about how to change.

NO is noticing the phase shift that is about to happen and letting the brain know what it is about to do so that it can make its own informed choices.

This really is very similar to holding a mirror up to someone or even showing them a video of themselves so they can "see themselves" and then adapt their behaviour.

When NO informs the brain about an impending phase shift, it is simply giving information and the brain will decide if that information is relevant in terms of it's overall agenda. It can equally choose to ignore the information if it is not relevant - e.g. if the phase shift is actually useful.

So the smoothing of the brain you talk about is exactly what happens with the linear systems and is one of the reasons the linear systems create so many side effects. Optimising the brain by providing the brain with greater information is very different than pushing the brain to predetermined frequencies and amplitudes as happens with linear neurofeedback.

Because we are plugging into and respecting the non linear nature of the brain, and the brain's own intelligence remains in control and can perfectly coordinate the whole brain in response to any specific changes it makes, we will see positive synergistic consequences. So far from suppressing creativity, for example, we will see exactly the opposite. As the brain is prompted to return to the present, it also returns to its intrinsic freedom, potential and creativity.

The key to understanding NO is to understand that it is built on the discovery that the brain's own intrinsic intelligence can rewire its own brain far better than a human can direct it to, if it has the information to do so. Providing that information is what NO does.

 

[hlat]

She also said that in 3 sessions she had got rid of a lifelong background anxiety and hypervigilance.

This is quite amazing. I'm quite eager to get NeurOptimal and am pursuing one possibility at the moment.

 

[Ellipse]

This really is very similar to holding a mirror up to someone or even showing them a video of themselves so they can "see themselves" and then adapt their behaviour.

When NO inform the brain about an impending phase shift, it is simply giving information and the brain will decide if that information is relevant in terms of it's overall agenda. It can equally choose to ignore the information if it is not relevant - e.g. if the phase shift is actually useful.

Yes but a mirror can deform an image if not built carefully. And in the NO case, it's all about choosing thresholds and so on when building the mirror, i.e. the algorithm which send the feed back. Choices had sure to be done when building the system.

The second point is that a mirror is analog when NO is numeric. So the pitfall is that you can have bugs in the algorithm. You want the system to do something and it do something else.

Last point is that the brain can be easily tricked or do false assumptions. So when you say "the brain will decide if that information is relevant in terms of it's overall agenda", I do not take that for granted.

Anyway, even if the system is no perfect, and it is necessarily not, I think that the important point is the intention of Vald and is orientation, and the source of information that Laura have, seem to validate it. And regarding this, I can understand the attitude of Vald, not disclosing the source code so no perverted system can appear. The drawback being that we have to trust him and hope that positive effects of the system largely surpass negatives ones which it seem to be the case.

And thanks again for your input.

 

[Divide by Zero]

The only exception is running the 45 minute instead of the 33 minute session. However, contrary to what you might expect, the effect of the two will be the same. The longer one is not producing more. The 33 minute session is achieving as much as can be achieved in one session. So why bother? Quite simpy, some clients enjoy or even treasure the chill out time. For example, I have a client with 2 autistic children. Her NO session is the highlight of her week and the only time when she experiences significant rest time. So we dispense with the usual chit chat and run a 45 minute session. She usually falls asleep or drifts in and out of sleep and awakes newed and restored.

I remember when using NO that all the zen modes increased to longer lengths when doing extended. How is that not producing more brain training?

Yes but a mirror can deform an image if not built carefully. And in the NO case, it's all about choosing thresholds and so on when building the mirror, i.e. the algorithm which send the feed back. Choices had sure to be done when building the system.

The second point is that a mirror is analog when NO is numeric. So the pitfall is that you can have bugs in the algorithm. You want the system to do something and it do something else.

Last point is that the brain can be easily tricked or do false assumptions. So when you say "the brain will decide if that information is relevant in terms of it's overall agenda", I do not take that for granted.

It may be the reason to explain what Gaby said about needing time after to reorient and apply it to life. The brain training needs practical use in life in order to "solidify" patterns, etc in the brain.

 

[nature]

Good questions, Ellipse ! I just finished to read Strangers to ourselves where the author T. Wilson emphasizes on how easily we can be mislead by our adaptive unconscious (likes biases, false asumptions, etc.) . I plan to continue my readings with thinking fast thinking slow (system1/system 2). All this brain stuff seems so complex, it's difficult to imagine how a simple system like NO can balance brain.

 

[nature]

I remember when using NO that all the zen modes increased to longer lengths when doing extended. How is that not producing more brain training?

I wondered the same thing, as I seemed to enjoy a nearly 2 hours non-stop session I've done one night. It was during a night I couldn't sleep back. So, I've done this long session till the early morning and I wasn't tired during the day! I was amazed, as I'm someone easily tired.

 

[Ellipse]

Good questions, Ellipse ! I just finished to read Strangers to ourselves where the author T. Wilson emphasizes on how easily we can be mislead by our adaptive unconscious (likes biases, false asumptions, etc.) . I plan to continue my readings with thinking fast thinking slow (system1/system 2). All this brain stuff seems so complex, it's difficult to imagine how a simple system like NO can balance brain.

I think that Vald stumble on a EEG pattern which was appearing on a repetitiveness base, the "fluttering". But you have, indeed, to correlate it with the fact that sending a feedback will balance the brain. Totally astonishing for me, but neuroscience is a domain I absolutely don't know. Some reading in perspective for sure.

Among you acquaintance, don't you have a neurologist or someone doing research on the brain?

Once I known a such person but it's at least 10 years ago and when I asked him about his research he made me laugh because he said me something like "yeah we saw a lot of things going on with the brain but so what?". I understood he was not all right with the direction of the research or disappointed.

 

[Jacques]

The key to understanding NO is to understand that it is built on the discovery that the brain's own intrinsic intelligence can rewire its own brain far better than a human can direct it to, if it has the information to do so. Providing that information is what NO does.

I'm reading the book "Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky - tome 1" by Maurice Nicoll and today I read a section about the brain that I found interesting and showing in a certain manner that the brain has many choices to rewire his own brain.

Let us take another illustration. The physical instrument of thought is the brain. The brain contains something like 14,000,000,000 distinct nerve-cells, each with about 100 branches or connections, with other nerve-cells. Let us picture this on a very reduced scale, as a mere diagram.



This small diagram shews a nervous or psychic impulse entering the field under observation at A and passing through nerve-cells (1) to nerve-cell (2) and then to (3) via one path only, shewn in thick lines | | | | | | | | | But you will notice that this impulse entering at A might take many other paths. And if you remember that there are some 14,000,000,000 brain-cells, each with 100 arms or branches or connections, then you will realize in how many ways a thing can be taken —that is, along how many different paths an impulse can travel theoretically. But owing to habit impulses find habitual tracks and so produce the same results.