Neurofeedback is a small field with many competing approaches, or models. There are those in the neurofeedback field who feel they have the best way to change the brain.
However, the most experienced clinicians dismiss that. They say they've come to realize there are a variety of ways to initiate or engage change. Each brain is unique. There's no one answer. For example, let's look at the possible ways for three clinicians to approach an anxiety problem.
1) One clinician puts the electrode at the temporal lobe.
2) Another places electrodes over the sensory motor strip.
3) The third might use placements at the frontal lobe.
(note: there are more factors than site placement such as frequency, but this is a simple example)
The patient gets benefit in all three cases - for what appears to be the same problem. Why? For one, it may be that more than one exercise helps.
There's never just one spot in the brain that's being trained - regardless where the electrodes are placed. The brain is a complex network. Training at one site can impact timing at other sites. There may be a more "local" effect. Clinicians always recognize that training at any site can have global effects also.
So how do you pick the best model?
You need to pick the best course that will give you the most solid grounding. You need to realize it's just the beginning. Pick a solid model, learn it well, and then start adding other models to it. If you try to learn all the various models at once, it doesn't really work well.
The Exercise Model
Let's say you've had a sore shoulder for a while. You ask three of the top exercise physiologists to suggest exercises to fix it. The chances are, each will come up with something different. Why? Because there's more than one exercise to help improve the sore shoulder.
The brain is the same way. There are many exercises that can work.
The Medication Model
A doctor can not usually predict, for instance, how Prozac might affect a patient until they see the patient's response (at least until recently). That's true even though drug companies have spent billions on learning about these medications. Dosage may need adjusting, or a different medication may work better, or two or more medications, used in conjuction, may be needed for best results. The best MD's are masterful at adjusting and responding to the individual patient's brain until they get a combination that works.
No one can predict how a brain will respond to neurofeedback. So many clinicians find adjusting how they do neurofeedback to fit how someone responds to the training is important. There's no "one size fits all." Just as there's no one medication fits all.
There's another challenge to the anxiety example above. If there are three patients all with anxiety, you may not be dealing with the same problem at all. Each patient is unique, and what works for one might not work at all for the other. So clinical assessment, clinical judgment and adapting what works for each patient is a requirement in this sophisticated brain exercise system (neurofeedback).
There are multiple models in the field of neurofeedback, just as their are multiple exercise models that have their passionate followers. All of them have their strengths. Some have clear weaknesses, particularly when it becomes too much a strict formula or "by the numbers". Finding the best clinicians who are flexible in their approach makes the most sense.
A good clinician becomes masterful at adjusting neurofeedback - the site, the frequencies, even the way feedback is given al effect change. They find what works. Many have found more than one approach that works - just as more than one medication can work. Some may have preferences for one approach or another, just as MD's become comfortable with certain medications they have experience with. .
We've talked to many excellent clinicians in neurofeedback- MD's, psychologists, social workers, RN's. There are times when they describe very differing approaches to the same problem. The results they all described seemed to work.
One of the limitations to this field (and many others) is that is is hard to compare results. There are very few objective measures to compare. If a client says they are better, did one clinician get them "more better" than another, if both are happy? We are encouraging more use of objective measures. There are some innovative options just being implemented by provides. If you have more interest in learning about it, contact us.
