Comments on z-scores are being compiled in the following article:
The following is from a recent post to a large list group, from a clinician in Germany:
I have been using z-score training for 6 months - it makes for a lot more effectiveness in certain cases - to my experience, firstly in cases of marked deviations at all in qeeg. Here it is a strong tool for initial "normalisation", which means also "stabilisation".
Secondly, I prefer training with z-scores, when measures of connectivity in specificity, especially coherence, show deviations from what is expected. With live z-scores there is an instant control for training up or down, where I previously never was certain beyond thumb rules to train coherence up or down. and, as we learned again from dr. Robert Thatcher at the z-score workshop in January/Cleveland, coherence seems to be one of the strongest indicators for brain stability. It is always fascinating for me to see that deviations can normalize within a shorter time than expected, sometimes within one session. I have done some 4x4 channel z-score trainings within one session - with remarkable effects, which where called by patients/patient's parents as "milestones" in therapy.
Unfortunately I am just a clinician and have not much time for a more controlled study on this...
Some of my students are calling z-score training to be more than a milestone -
Doerte Klein, Dipl.-Psych./Psychotherapeutin PP, KJP
EEG-TRAIN EEG-Biofeedback Trainingszentrum Hannover - Germany
The following comment came in on a neuroguide post: