We have just received our BrainMaster as a donation from Tom Collura and Terri. Many thanks. We will be using it at the EEG Institute with the principal hope of inserting it into home use generally for economical home practice.

At the office, we will also be using the Mini-Q feature, and will likely be using it also as the interface to Hershel's HEG unit.

Siegfried Othmer

Siegfried,

I have also been looking into the BrainMaster system for the purpose of home training. I would be very interested in hearing your evaluation of this system.

I am also keen to use the Mini-Q feature. I'm told that Bob Thatcher's database may also be used in conjunction with the BrainMaster, but a colleague here in Australia tells me that only the Sterman database is of any value because it allows for time of day effects. Any comments?

You've also mentioned HEG, and I'm very interested in using that in conjunction with the BrainMaster. However, Rosemary MacGregor tells me that HEG effects can be accomplished just as easily with correct breathing training. She says she has had this discussion with Hershel and proved her case to him.

I'm, of course, interested in seeing what effect HEG might have on my Nathan, who has frontal slowing. With his degree of disability, I honestly don't think he could be taught a correct breathing technique, but I'm assuming HEG is more about direct feedback (operant conditioning) than about having to learn a technique. Is this the case? Also, someone told me that HEG may have produced a stroke in one client.

I know you've written an article on HEG somewhere, but I can't locate it.

I would love to hear your comments on this matter.

Mark Darling
Sunshine Coast, Australia

Dear Mark--

Sue is going to start checking out the BrainMaster and we'll have more to report shortly. We will be working with Tom and Terri Collura to implement some features on it that we particularly like.

With regard to the Mini-Q, the biggest downside is the inability to do artifacting. So the mini-Q should be taken for what it is, a quick way to make some comparisons that happen to be particularly useful for those of us who are doing inter-hemispheric training or two-channel training at homologous sites. The comparison to the Thatcher database is compromised first and foremost by the absence of artifacting.

With regard to the time-of-day issue, the Sterman-Kaiser database is the only one to my knowledge which takes this explicitly into account, so this would be a criticism falling on all other databases out there. To say that this invalidates the use of the mini-Q is then an understatement. Implicitly this critique would invalidate every other database out there. That is just too harsh. A lot of good work is being done with the other databases, and the time-of-day issue is just going to be one of many features that will gradually be folded in to improve all of the databases over time.

Other folks with different loyalties could respond that the absence of coherence measures invalidates the Sterman-Kaiser database, and that would be too harsh as well.We simply have to be aware of the limitations of each of these assessment tools.

Finally, with regard to HEG: I cannot yet talk from experience, but it seems to me that in much of self-regulation training, we are able in principle to get results without resort to instrumentation. But we also know that providing feedback on our success does help the process along. The more we are dealing with someone who is cognitively compromised and whose motivation may be questionable, the more it is going to be advantageous to aid the process with some training wheels.

I believe that multiple challenges are preferable to the use of a single intervention. HEG seems to hold a lot of promise.

With regard to your son Nathan, the benefit may be limited because he has already done a lot of neurofeedback. I see HEG as more of a starter than a finisher. But as a clinician you have reason to investigate HEG professionally, and Nathan could be the beneficiary.

Siegfried