Although the general public seems to be much more aware of neurofeedback than it was when I first started doing brain training almost 20 years ago, I think it’s still confusing and perhaps even a bit overwhelming to be someone who’s exploring whether to try neurofeedback or has decided to try it but isn’t quite sure how to choose a trainer. One of the questions I recommend that people ask potential providers is how they get started with new trainees. The answer to that may enlighten you and help you decide which way to go. Below are the ways providers can choose from to get started:

Just Dive Right In.  If you have a practitioner who says something along the lines of trusting the equipment to know what to do with the brain so nothing more than the usual getting started paperwork (your contact info, etc.) is necessary, you have a practitioner who uses one-size-fits-all equipment. Such persons may deny it and will say that the system is so sophisticated that it knows what to do with you. But, such systems train the same spot on the scalp for every person. How these machines operate is a bit of a mystery. They do work for some people, but this type of approach falls short (in my opinion, of course) more than other approaches.

• Systems in which equipment assesses where on the brain to train you, then uses microcurrent to “reset” the brain, are a variant of the dive right in category. Others may feel differently, but I am extremely wary of microcurrent neurofeedback to the point that I do not even appreciate that it is called feedback, as the feedback loop is not really there. Despite knowing that others may feel differently, I strongly do not recommend microcurrent work.

Clinical Interview. If you have a practitioner who tells you they will do an interview and determine where on the scalp to train based on the things you tell them about what is wrong or what you want to improve, this person adheres to a philosophy that trusts that certain symptoms are related to certain brainwave patterns. These practitioners may use infra-low training or other symptom-driven systems, and they generally train at just a couple of spots on the scalp. I think this approach is good when working with young children or other people who cannot tolerate having a brain map done, such as those who have autism or other neurodivergence. I use a variant of this sometimes myself (though I train more than just a couple of places), and I know you can get good results with this approach.

Brain Map. The category of practitioner who tells you they start with a brain map is the sort who wants to “see” what the brain is actually doing before jumping in to training. There is a level of perceived precision that comes with this approach, but there are several subsets, ranging from those who measure very little to those who measure so much and make so many comparisons that it feels like false precision.

Some practitioners use one measurement from one or maybe two spots, call it an assessment or brain map even though it is rather cursory, and go from there. This can work, but it also misses an awful lot if it isn’t accompanied by an in-depth interview to fill in the measurement gaps. People who do this can get results, but it is, in my view, just a step above the “dive right in” category unless accompanied by a long interview.

Some practitioners use something called a QEEG, or quantitative EEG recording. They measure 19 spots on the brain, then send the recording to one of a few companies in the US that maintain databases of brain measurements. Their measurements are compared with the averages in those data bases, and training is based on how far off from those averages any one measurement might be. These measurements rely on the idea that there is a normal brain and that any one person might be within the norm or a few standard deviations away from the norm.

I personally object to the idea of a normal brain and that someone’s brain could be a standard deviation off. I also have found that sometimes, huge reports of EEG findings boil down to training at just one or maybe two spots on the brain. It feels like a lot of overly precise measurement—numbers gathered that a practitioner may not even be able to explain that boil down to the same thing a clinical interview could have uncovered, but with a lot less expense.

My Approach. I use a variety of brain map called a Trainers’ QEEG. This is a QEEG that measures 20 places on the scalp, but it does NOT compare the brain to normal or average. In fact, the recorded data is not sent out to any third-party company to be compared with other brains and is instead processed in my office. I use a system that is filled with algorithms based on what optimally functioning brains resemble. It compares the brain against itself, using things like ratios that researchers have determined are associated with highly functioning people (This may be a bit technical, but one example is that we know that the alpha frequency is best when it’s at least 15% higher on the right-hand side of the brain than in similar sites on the left.).

I like this system for several reasons. One is that it is not based on the notion that there is a such thing as a normal brain. I do not believe that putting a thousand or even five or 10 thousand brain maps together, then taking averages, leads to a picture of a healthy, normal brain. In fact, in the 1950s, the US Navy wanted its jets to have cockpits designed to fit all but outlier pilots. They did thousands of measurements, then took the average numbers and built a cockpit based on the average. Designers were surprised to find that there was not a single pilot with the average measurements, and that the cockpit was more uncomfortable than older ones. The Navy made my point—a mean or median doesn’t equal health, or best.

Another reason I prefer the Trainers’ QEEG (also called the Trainers’ Q) is that it does not assign pathology to a brain. It looks at relationships in the brain that may or may not be helpful to any one person, and those relationships may not be related to mental illness or learning disabilities. Anyone can do brain training to optimize their functioning. I won’t get obnoxious about it, but I really do believe almost anyone could improve their performance in life by doing a round of brain training. You don’t need to be abnormal to work with me and derive benefits.

The TQ also advocates whole-brain training. Some systems will take measurements, then only recommend training one or two places. The TQ advocates for a system called Whole-Brain Training. It entails rotating among spots on the brain in a circuit-like fashion–one day, you might do right-hemisphere training for relaxation, a second day you might train something called coherence, a third day you might train the sensori-motor strip, etc. Many of us who use this approach consider it to be like muscle-training. You wouldn’t train quadriceps only and ignore hamstrings, you wouldn’t train bicep and not triceps, and you wouldn’t lift heavy without including at least a little cardio. In a similar fashion, training one place in the brain might make slight changes, but big, systemic changes come from training the system itself. I love this thoroughness.

Finally, I like that the Trainers’ Q includes a questionnaire of subjective goals and objective information to help build a training plan. As one of my mentors used to say, a poet may want that daydreamy, excessive theta wave to be creative, and an electrical engineer may want that high-quantity of beta wave in the front to keep that linear, logical thinking going. A poet and an engineer are almost certainly going to have very different-looking brains (and will vary still more from an engineer who writes poetry or vice versa), but they may both be high-functioning and have training goals completely unrelated to what someone else might think of as a deficit or problem to be trained away. Questionnaires help us know why people want to do brain training and where they hope to be when they finish. Your goals matter, and brain training should adapt to your goals.

Obviously, I like my approach to brain training. I believe it includes measurements to see the brain without slipping into false precision, and I believe it takes into consideration important qualitative information, too. This does not mean that I would ever say that other peoples’ approaches are insufficient. One can, indeed, get results from almost any competent, experienced provider. It’s just a matter of knowing what you want for yourself and choosing it, and discovering what the options are empowers the consumer.

I hope this gives you a sense of one thing you can ask as you’re interviewing potential providers to differentiate among us. If my approach appeals to you, consider contacting me for a consultation. If you choose an in-person consultation, I will show you the equipment, show you what a brain map looks like, and answer your questions. If you choose an online consultation, we can cover similar ground, but I obviously cannot connect you to my equipment.