Page Title

3 Brainwave Connections Spring 2006

Text Box: This obligation may actually be more manageable than it might seem when we reflect on neurofeedback training programs costing thousands of dollars per person. At nominally $2000 per person, the national neurofeedback budget would be $600B, which would exceed the current budget for the national defense. We could actually make the case for that, but it would be pointless. Even a $2000 expenditure pales beside the public cost of educating a child through twelve grades of schooling (about $100K). A cost-benefit analysis of the social costs of addiction, of academic failure, of the prison system, of persistent unemployment, of eldercare, and of family strife because of emotional trauma and other mental health issues would make a universal neurofeedback program a bargain. But the argument would remain pointless. Our society is not going there on the mere basis of a cost/benefit argument, even if it were to be convinced intellectually. Universal access to neurofeedback will require an entirely different approach to the problem of service delivery than the current fee-for-service model. In thinking about this problem, my point of departure is the key word in biofeedback, which is “self-regulation.” Success in neurofeedback means that the competence has been transferred to the trainee. This must be true at two

Text Box: levels. Firstly, the brain owns its own acquired competence. But secondly, through the neurofeedback process the person also gains an understanding of the enlarged scope of our personal autonomy that may be gained through self-regulation. The technique raises one’s horizon on one’s own potential. Barriers to personal engagement fall away because of an enlarged sense of empowerment. It’s difficult to square this need to diffuse understanding broadly with the desire to compartment this kind of expertise within a professional cadre. In order to reach its full promise, neurofeedback has to be framed not as a therapeutic intervention primarily but as a natural part of the educational process, in this case one targeting our own internal regulatory regime rather than our academic or intellectual potential. Our capacity to improve the self-regulation of our own biological functions must be part of the knowledge base of every child. With it will come an enhanced sense of responsibility for the self, something that has been undermined by our emphasis on genetic causation and utter dependency on medical interventions. The near-term benefit for our society and the world at large could well be comparable to the impact of the computer and Internet revolution. But the impact would be qualitatively different. We would be

Text Box: About the Author Since 1988, Siegfried Othmer has been engaged in research and the management of the clinical applications of EEG biofeedback as chief Scientist of the EEG Institute and the Brian Othmer Foundation. He provides training for professionals in EEG biofeedback, and presents research findings in professional forums. Since 1985, he has been involved in the development of computerized instrumentation to provide EEG biofeedback training. He received his undergraduate education in physics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute with First Honors, and did work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He received his graduate education at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; 1962-1970, where he received the Ph.D. in experimental physics, with minors in theoretical physics and mathematics; and also received a Danforth Fellowship and teaching assistantship. Dr. Othmer has contributed many articles and talks to the professional literature, and has written chapters for books including “ADD—The 20 Hour Solution,” (Steinberg and Othmer, ISBN –1-93741-37-9) and “Introduction to Quantitative EEG and Neurofeedback.” (Evans and Arbanal)

In order to reach its full promise, neurofeedback has to be framed not as a therapeutic intervention primarily but as a natural part of the educational process...