Brain training with younger children is different from training adults in many ways. The process is the same—decide what to train and how, then do the training—but the details vary depending upon the age of the child.

Children Sometimes Cannot Tolerate Brain Maps

Most of the time, depending upon one’s philosophy of training, neurofeedback begins with conducting a brain map, called a Trainers’ qEEG. This is a measurement of 20 sites on the scalp that correspond to specific regions of the brain, and the measurement serves as a guide to know where and what to train. It requires either wearing a cap with electrodes in it or having electrodes directly placed on the scalp, then measuring electrical activity while the eyes are closed, the eyes are open, and the eyes are open while doing a small task such as recounting numbers or quietly reading.

Children from about age 10 and up are almost always capable of completing a brain map. Younger children, however, are often too wriggly to sit still long enough for the measurements. This is especially true for the type of children whose parents want them to do brain training.

Being little and wriggly isn’t a deterrent to training, however. It simply means that one must get clues about brain function from watching the neurofeedback software carefully. It also helps to get clear instructions from a parent or caregiver about training goals.

Kids’ Brains are Different

Our brains all have different electrical speeds that we have given names.

The dominant frequency in the brain changes as we age. In babies, that delta frequency of sleep is dominant, which is really no surprise given that babies sleep as much as they do. Up through late elementary school, theta is the dominant frequency. This helps us understand the incredible state of imagination and imaginary play we see in children as they develop. By around age 10 (more or less depending upon the individual child), the alpha frequency—which should peak at approximately 10 Hz—is dominant and remains so until there is aging or cognitive decline in the mix.

What this means is that protocols meant for adults with adult-level electrical frequencies usually are not right or helpful for younger children. It also means that special care is required for tweens and younger teens, whose brains may look either more like adults or more like younger children, depending on their physical development.

If you have tried neurofeedback for yourself, understand that younger children will be training in different ways and with different frequencies than you did. It is still the same software, and it still involves the same principles. Your practitioner simply must detect where the child’s brain is and adjust the software to meet childhood needs.

The philosophy of experienced practitioners is to meet the child where he/she is at electrically, but to train adults where they should ideally be. You as the parent do not need to worry about this but should ensure that your practitioner is skilled enough to know how to adapt to children’s brains.

Client-Led Sessions

Brain training can be tiring work, even though to a person not doing the training it simply looks like someone is sitting quietly with eyes closed, playing a game, or watching visual media with doo-dads attached to their heads. The brain uses more glucose than any other part of the body, and it uses a lot of energy trying to understand and respond to the reward sounds that the neurofeedback software provides the person doing training.

Children in particular can become quite tired, especially when first starting a round of brain training, before the planned number of minutes of training is finished during any given session. Until you get used to it, neurofeedback is hard work for the brain! It’s always important to customize training to the individual, but it’s especially important to observe and respond to kids. Doing neurofeedback is usually fun for them (who doesn’t love getting extra screen time during the school week), but it’s important to stop if they ask to stop. Not only does it prevent over-training, it fosters trust in the child that they have some agency in what is happening.

Feedback/Tracking Changes is Different

One can simply ask an adult how they are doing and what they are experiencing with respect to training. Children often do not have the self-awareness to provide this information. Therefore, it is important if you are the adult bringing the child to provide feedback to the practitioner. Teachers are often the first to notice changes, so if a teacher says something, that is important information to bring to sessions. Parents will quite quickly notice things like improved sleep and awakening more refreshed in the morning, and this is also good to know.

For you as the parent or caregiver of a young person getting ready to do neurofeedback, these differences should not be a source of worry beyond ensuring that your practitioner knows how to adapt their work to their youngest clients through the mid-teen years.

I work with children beginning around age eight (I will consider younger clients on a case-by-case basis). If you are interested in learning more, give me a call or schedule a consultation.

Neurofeedback equipment is not that hard to operate, but it requires expertise to use it well.

If you’re searching for a provider, you of course want someone who has expertise, not just a rudimentary understanding of how to operate their system. The trouble is that it can be a challenge to find the right person, because there is a lot of noise about what makes for a good brain trainer.

The reality is that people from all walks of life learn to do neurofeedback. From my perspective, the largest segment of providers are mental health providers—psychologists, counselors, and social workers. Next in line are lay persons and health-care providers like chiropractors and occupational therapists. The fewest number of practitioners are MDs or DOs—and they’re usually psychiatrists, but not always. Teachers and tutors are somewhere in the mix, too. Neuroscientists in laboratories are increasingly active in researching neurofeedback, but I am only aware of a few who run neurofeedback clinics associated with their universities.

With such a diversity of people from many professional backgrounds involved, it can be confusing for someone who wants to do neurofeedback to find someone who has a solid track record of producing positive outcomes. There is no such thing as a degree in neurofeedback at this time. Looking for licensure is not possible, because no license is required to do neurofeedback. The reason for this is that neurofeedback is a tool to provide biofeedback for the brain. It is not a separate profession.

Moreover, brain training with neurofeedback is safe. The FDA determined that neurofeedback is safe enough to be considered a relaxation tool, so devices do not even need to be registered. There is no safety reason to restrict access to the tool or control who can use the tool. (There is, of course, restriction on who can practice medicine or psychology, so if one is making medical/curative claims, that person should be operating within what is called their scope of practice.)

Over the past several decades, guild organizations have stepped into the breach and tried to assert themselves as the foremost authority and gatekeeper of who is competent at neurofeedback. Associations have morphed over time, as have certification boards. Some groups have even tried to limit who is allowed to do neurofeedback, going so far as to take legal action against people and organizations. It has been a messy battle for power and control.

Sorting through this can be frustrating as a potential trainee, and it can be frustrating on the provider side, too. For example, I acquired certification by completing a 500-hour residency, completing 50 hours of supervision, and passing an examination. After all that work, the certification board folded, so I can claim to once have had that certification, but it does not exist anymore.

Now, my certification comes from a company that only certifies those who use its philosophical approach. It’s nice to have outside affirmation of my training, but at this point in my career, I do not think certification matters very much in terms of my expertise or effectiveness.

Several years ago, an individual who had been called upon as an expert witness in some of the internecine battles over neurofeedback asserted that fewer than 30% of all neurofeedback practitioners sought out certification. Most felt it didn’t add to their expertise and that it was more of a marketing tool than a sign of competence. I agree with that perspective (especially after having clients come to me in the wake of disappointment from working with certified but unskilled providers).

So, what does someone do when looking for a provider? What are the signs of competence? How does one discern and decide? I would argue that the following things matter:

• Years of experience. Look for someone who has primarily been doing neurofeedback—not merely dabbling with a few clients here and there—for a length of time that convinces you they know what they’re doing. If it’s a new practitioner, that is NOT necessarily a problem, as long as they are working under supervision with someone more experienced. Sometimes, new people have a zeal that makes them more attentive than someone for whom neurofeedback has become routine. BUT, someone new who is working on his or her own, without regular check-ins with a mentor or supervisor, is a riskier situation. Again, a license or degree in any field does not confer expertise in neurofeedback. It sounds a bit silly to say, but only training and experience in neurofeedback provide expertise in neurofeedback.

• Instructor status. If someone teaches others how to do neurofeedback, then it is highly likely that they have enough expertise to work with you. Just be sure that the person teaches more than just theory or brain science; they need to know how to DO neurofeedback, not just talk about it.

• Learning background. Ask about where and how a person received their neurofeedback training. Going to a one-week seminar is in no way enough training to be an indicator of competence. There is a steep learning curve with neurofeedback, and although It’s possible to hang out a shingle and do business after a quick seminar, it’s not wise.  That said, don’t be alarmed by people who say that they initially learned through private training. Very few universities in the United States teach neurofeedback. This means that learning is left to private companies, who often do training in hotel conference rooms and online. That is okay and not a sign of a problem. Excellent learning can happen in these environments.

• Substance, not marketing fluff. If someone has a website that makes bold sales promises without much meat in the content, it’s probably best to ask some pointed questions. Advertising (you know the sort—claiming to be the only cutting-edge organization, or the only place that has X credential or skill, or that they’re the largest and best) is not equivalent to expertise. Look for someone who is willing to share their knowledge, not just try to baffle you with superlatives.

• Your intuition about fit. I’ve written in earlier blog posts that I believe the relationship between trainer and trainee is important to outcome. If you feel like you cannot connect with your practitioner, or you’re just a number, or something else just isn’t right, then look elsewhere. There are enough practitioners in the DMV to find the right person for anyone.

I feel that because I’ve just made strong statements about how to determine who may and may not be a good provider, I should re-share my credentials:

I, like most practitioners, did not learn neurofeedback in my graduate counseling program. In the early 2000s, I had almost a month of full-time trainings with more than one organization. In addition, I studied under a clinical psychologist, and I studied under a someone who himself was a protégé of one the research pioneers for the field. I had a 500-hour residency and had over 50 hours of supervision during that time. I once had two certifications but now have one (and I have no intention of acquiring any more certifications). I practiced neurofeedback exclusively for most of my years in practice and only in the past few years added hypnosis. I teach others how to do neurofeedback, primarily through online instruction but sometimes in person. This is sometimes through a company that sells equipment and sometimes private clients who seek my help. I consult with one of my long-time mentors on complicated situations, just to remain sharp and include different perspectives.

The bottom line when you’re looking for a provider is to find someone who has solid training in neurofeedback, is seasoned or seeks guidance from a seasoned person, and is a person with whom you feel you can work. Don’t rely on credentials like degrees (MA vs PhD vs MD/DO doesn’t equate to neurofeedback training) or certifications.

If you think I might be a good fit for you, please reach out. If you’re not in the Northern Virginia area and are reading this, I can either help you with home training or may be able to help you choose a practitioner in your area.

Back when I took my first classes in how to do neurofeedback, my instructors made sure that we knew the history of neurofeedback. We were taught that, like so many scientific advances, NASA had an indirect hand in moving forward UCLA neuroscientist Dr. Barry Sterman’s research using cats and, later, a research assistant to discover that biofeedback for the brain worked. We learned that Dr. Margaret Ayers, a Beverly Hills psychologist, worked with Dr. Sterman to bring brain training to a few of her clients. We learned that Siegried and Sue Othmer, parents of one of Dr. Ayers’ neurofeedback clients, were so impressed with what neurofeedback did for their deeply distressed child that they pushed to bring neurofeedback to the broader public. (There was also a great deal of drama involved in this process, and still today, people remain upset that so-called “laypersons” like the Othmers could get away with offering neurofeedback.)

What often gets lost in the big-picture story is the Othmers’ son, Brian. He had so many problems in his short life, and neurofeedback played a significant role in alleviating some of his troubles. One can read an overview of his story in the book A Symphony in the Brain, but that book is getting old and is not read by as many people as it was when it first came out.

So, I was pleased earlier this week to stumble across Brian’s story on Siegfried Othmer’s EEGInfo site. I do what I do in many respects because of Brian’s journey; all neurofeedback practitioners owe the entire Othmer family a debt of gratitude. All Siegfried and Sue Othmer had to go on at the time was trial and error. And hope. Their courage, and Brian’s, took neurofeedback out of a UCLA neuroscience lab and brought it to the world.

I encourage you to take a few minutes to read his story, which you may find here. That link takes one to the EEGInfo newsletter page, and as new newsletters get published, older issues slide down. If you are reading this post in the future, please scroll down in time to the 24 August 2024 edition.