The wurster, the better

There are two HEG systems of which I’m aware: nIR (near infrared) and pIR (passive infrared.) Both measure and feedback changes in infrared temperature, which is seen as a measure of metabolic activity. The idea is that the brain can learn to increase metabolic capacity by increasing perfusion of blood into the tissues of the cortex and/or improving the amount of oxygen in that blood. So HEG is primarily oriented toward making it possible for neurons to speed up their firing rates and sustain them for longer periods.

PIR, developed by Jeff Carmen, is basically an infrared thermometer that is held over Fpz in the center of the forehead. It was originally used for Dr. Carmen’s work with migraines, but its use has expanded to cover a wide range of problems.

NIR, developed by Hershel Toomim, includes a blinking red LED, which is held against the skin of the forehead by a headband. The idea is that this light travels through the skin and skull, hits the surface of the brain and, depending on how much red (oxygenated) blood is present, bounces back to be picked up by a sensor on the headband. Training involves a ratio and infrared temperature. It was originally developed as a training approach for attention and focus, though it too has been expanded to many other uses.

There are two main benefits of HEG from my point of view:
1. It works on an area of the brain (the prefrontal cortex), which is both the main executive center of the cortex and is particularly difficult to train with EEG because of the eye and muscle artifact that interferes with brain electrical signals.
2, Unlike EEG, which has a fairly steep learning curve to get started and should be done based on a brain-based assessment, HEG is very easy to learn and generally doesn’t require an assessment.

HEG is generally limited to training the forehead area where there is no hair, though it reputedly can be used in other areas if there is no hair or the hair is light-colored, not too dense and is parted. I’ve never been too clear on how the headbands would actually work outside the forehead area. It is reported that HEG can be trained optimally only once every 4 days. It is also important that it not be overtrained (especially in terms of length of training in a given session. Most suggestions are that it begin with about 10 minutes per session early in training and slowly work up to 30 minutes per session as the client can sustain it.

According to some people who have used both in an organized way, one of the differences is that pIR tends to increase frontal coherences, while nIR tends to reduce it. PIR is generally trained in one site for the entire training period. NIR is usually trained in 3 different sites, splitting the session into thirds.

Hope this is helpful. I’m sure there are others who use HEG who will add to this answer.

Question: Is infrared thermometer same as a (sensitive) digital thermometer ?

I guess if you could find a sensitive digital infrared thermometer that could send a continuous stream of data to the computer, it might be the same. But infrared temperature is not the same as absolute temperature. Infrared is measuring the heat emitted from a source usually from a distance. It is a better measure of metabolic activity. If you measure your body’s temperature with a standard (even very sensitive) thermometer, it will be quite stable, regardless of whether you are running or lying down, thinking or sleeping. The infrared thermometer would show changes in output (depending on what you were measuring) for these various different states.

–
Peter Van Deusen
pvdtlc@gmail.com
http://www.brain-trainer.com
305/433-3160
The Learning Curve, Inc.

We met with the professionals who did the QEEG on our daughter on New Year’s eve to discuss what the results indicated. They basically supported the training that we have been doing for the past year. However, now the training protocol will be modified to support more closely the findings at this time.

One good thing is that her delta waves are more in line with what they should be. However, there is high beta wave production on the right side. This indicates some type of traumatic brain injury.

Next Monday, the adjusted protocol will be used and tweaked. Once the session is complete, I will take the new protocols home with me for use at home.

I did a biofeedback session last night using the EEG design and neuropuzzles. It worked well. Since this design is supposed to be “quiet” with as little interaction from Alicia as possible, I tried to reduce the amount of talking I did with Alicia. I assume that this will be the practice when I use this design. However, I hope that Bill and Marvin will be able to try the neuropuzzles and advise me how to proceed.

Since I now have some original session data from the very beginning, I can compare this to what more recent sessions show that Bill has done and that I have done. I am concerned that my sessions are off some how. But I won’t know that until I analyze the session data and compare.

I found this software referenced in the Braintrainer or Bioexplorer Yahoo group list I belong to and decided to try it out for use with my daughter. I downloaded the trial version. I had a couple of questions which Hans (the software developer) answered quickly and completely (I had trouble installing it in Vista). He also offered to modify the designs I was using to add the neuropuzzles object. So, I took him up on his offer. He sent the 2 design back having replaced the dvd object with the puzzles.

I did a session the other day with my daughter Alicia yesterday afternoon. I should have refreshed my memory by reading the manual again, but I didn’t. So, I wound up doing a 9-and-a-half-minute session straight through, instead of stopping after 3 minutes. My daughter is sort of non-verbal in that she won’t reply to questions. But she does listen and take it all in. So, I talked with her during the session as the manual suggested. As the pieces uncovered, I asked her to guess what the piece was showing and what the picture might be. I told her I saw an “eye” or “ear” or something to keep her focused. I described what I saw being uncovered and asked her to guess what the puzzle was.

So, I think this was good. I sent the session results to our doctor for review. I used the HEG design that Hans modified (which worked well – thank you again Hans) and noticed that perhaps it needs to be modified again for the “color displays” as described in the manual for a visual reward, although in our daughter’s case this might be distracting.

I’ll review this with our doctor and get back to you all. At this point, the trial period is ending soon and I will probably purchase this (although I hope to consult with our doctor about the usefulness with our daughter).

I had a chance last night to go to the biofeedback session that Bill does with our daughter. It had been weeks since I had an opportunity to go. He did an EEG session and I noted the numbers. His stabilized around 33/60/13 whereas mine have been around 60/40/12. I tried to determine why mine were different. First, each system is different and each set of electrodes is different and cannot be expected to yield the same results. The difference could also be my lack of experience in placing the electrodes. So, next week I will bring my neuroband and we will see if my placement is correct and then see what the numbers are with Bill’s setup.

I did note that I do not prepare the ground electrode and put goop on it as I should do. I will make sure I do this the next time I do this session at home and check out the numbers then.

Just as an aside, the middle number will increase when the client becomes vocal during the session. So, when Alicia sings along or talks, the number will increase.

And, it’s not the raw numbers that matter. It is the differential that matters and that the training is going in the right direction. In our case, we want to increase all 3 levels.