Page Title

2 Brainwave Connections Winter 2005

Text Box: As the field of neurofeedback continues to evolve and change, we continue to seek metaphors or guiding principles that can bring workers together. We are faced with many concepts that are intrinsically separatist or devisive, as they force us to choose one side or the other. These include clinical vs. nonclinical approaches, the "to Q or not to Q" controversy, debates regarding reward contingencies or philosophies, use of adjunct techniques, "should we use games," and other issues. We seek unifying principles that will allow practitioners to meet on common ground, and to build upon jointly, rather than to take sides across. One of these principles is that of "flexibility and appropriateness," which to me permeates not only the nuts and bolts practice of neurofeedback, but also our approach to the field, as well as conduct both inside and outside the professional arena. In the context of EEG training, this paradigm provides an approach to rationalizing protocols and clinical methods, as well as conducting sessions, managing trainees, and interacting with trainees' family, professional, and support persons. In the broader sense, it can inform our interactions with other factions in the community, professionals, clients, educators, the

Text Box: press, and so on. At its core, the concept of flexibility and appropriateness, when applied to the brain, simply means that the brain needs to be flexible, and that there are appropriate brain states and behaviors, for appropriate circumstances. It is a simple issue of fitting the brain's mode of operation to the current demands, to reduce stress, improve productivity, and, ultimately, to relieve suffering. This is neither a medical nor a nonmedical approach, it is a "medical-neutral" approach. It provides a way of looking at normal function in a dynamical way, and a way of looking at any non-optimal functioning as something that can be improved upon. At an extreme, inflexible or inappropriate brain states may appear in the DSM-IIIR, but such a designation is not fundamental to how we approach improving brain function. A great many maladies and disorders can be fit into this conceptual framework, in that the brain may be inflexible, and stuck in a particular way of working, leading to chronic disfunction and maladjustment. Similarly, if the brain is flexible but is unable to achieve appropriate states at desired times (math class, meetings, etc), then again there is the potential for a negative outcome. The

Text Box: primary challenge of neurofeedback is to teach the brain the proper flexibility, and to allow it to learn to suit appropriate states to appropriate circumstances, and then allow the brain to take over, doing what it does best, automatically. One example I give is to look at a typical athlete, for example a basketball player. We do not train a basketball player to run around the court with their hand up in the air at all times, because the basket is up there, and the hand will need to be there some time. This is clearly not a productive approach. However, there are those who look upon neurofeedback training as doing just that, pushing the brain into the "good" brainwaves, and pushing the "bad"ones down. Rather than appreciating the dynamics and importance of changing brain states, some trainers view the neurofeedback as a way to mold or bend the brain back into a "good" shape, as if it were made of clay. What is being provided is guided exploration. It is paradoxical but true that, when control and guidance are provided, then exploration can proceed to yield results. When a system is running "open loop," then it may traverse many possible modes, but there is no insight regarding what the modes mean, or even that they exist.

Text Box: At an extreme, inflexible or inappropriate brain states may appear in the DSM-IIIr, but such a designation is not fundamental...