I have once again heard from potential clients that they are looking for practitioners who have cutting-edge gear, thinking that these people will be the “best” practitioners. Despite the fact that most of my gear is new and pretty fancy, I’d argue that cutting-edge is just a marketing gimmick and not a way in which to choose a practitioner. Here’s why.
Some manufacturing companies market their neurofeedback gear to practitioners (and sometimes, the public at large) as the most scientific and cutting-edge. It’s mostly marketing hype, and I suspect that there are practitioners—especially those looking for a low-effort way to get in to the field—fall for this marketing fluff. That, in turn, makes me wonder what people who are potentially wanting to give neurofeedback a try might think when practitioners pass along this “latest and greatest” mindset to them.
The truth is that the basic equipment gets better and better all the time, but there really haven’t been seismic shifts in what’s available for training.
Neurofeedback is based on measuring the electrical brainwave patterns at different sites on the head, then providing feedback to the body based on those measurements. The electrical signal is picked up by electrodes, and they display on almost all neurofeedback software via an oscilloscope. Basically, all oscilloscopes, regardless of whether a person is measuring electricity from brainwaves or building wiring, show the same thing. Some may have fancier graphics (on one of my pieces of software, I have the ability to change the size of the display, the graphic display of the signal, and even the colors in which it appears), but they all perform the same basic function.
The same is true of what we call amplifiers. The brain’s electrical signal is quite faint, because it has to make it through the bones of the skull, and the signal may include non-brainwave information (called artifact) that needs to be filtered out. The amplifier literally amplifies, or boosts, the signal, and the software filters the signal to help get as clean of a measurement as possible. Amplifiers are more sophisticated than they were in the 1970s, but again, they all perform the same basic task. Some can train one channel—site on the brain—at a time, some can train two, some can train four, and a very few can train eight (though eight-channel systems are rare and not always reliable or helpful). Some come in colorful boxes. Some are bigger in size than others. But, amplifiers all basically do the same thing.
Software makes a much bigger difference than hardware. Some software is marketed as plug-and-play to practitioners, so the devices are set up to be easy for anyone to learn to use quickly. Such devices work when they work, but practitioners are left with little vision to see what’s really happening, and they do not receive a good education on what is happening to any one client, or why, because it’s all happening in a proprietary black box.
I am not a fan of dumbed-down devices and find myself often frustrated with lofty claims of superiority that are more fluff than substance.
Other types of software are more solid, but users frequently don’t receive information on how measurements of brainwave activity get translated in to how to train the brain, where, etc. It’s much simpler to say, “Do THIS,” than to explain why, and when/how to vary from that original plan.
So, if neither software nor hardware are game changers in the “this is cutting-edge” arena, it means that the greatest weakness, and biggest diversifier, in the world of neurofeedback is the education of the practitioner. I don’t mean whether a person has a master’s or a doctorate, or any degree at all, because most graduate programs in mental health do little more than mention that neurofeedback is a tool that exists. Non mental-health professions, such as chiropractic, physical or occupational therapy, or school teaching, receive even less information in their programs about neurofeedback than those in counseling or psychology programs. No degree in anything confers expertise in neurofeedback, it is training in neurofeedback that confers expertise.
As a result, it’s still a bit of a Wild West situation for practitioners, and the buyer must beware. Most learning happens in hotel conference rooms and at conferences. There is great education out there, but whew, it is a challenge to discern, and it is still incumbent upon the client/customer to know to ask about education and not the technology itself (for the most part, anyhow; some one-size-fits-all devices aren’t that helpful even for those with a solid education). There are basic, introductory classes which last about a week in most cases, but they are not enough to really understand what one is doing. Neurofeedback has a steep learning curve, and it requires dedicated effort from each practitioner who is truly trying to master it and not just take shortcuts.
Since I raise this subject, I’ll also share my own background. I started with a week-long program through a company called EEGer. Then, I studied under a psychologist in private practice who took on a few local psychotherapists as students. After that, I took another week-long class with a company called Brain Trainer International. Because I wanted to work for certification, I did a 500-hour apprenticeship with a local practitioner. I’m not quite at 20 years of experience yet, but I continue to study and learn what is happening in the field, and I help mentor future practitioners.
My equipment is new, and I have pieces of software in my toolkit that are brand new to the market this year. Despite all the shiny newness of gear, I would argue that my competitive edge is almost two decades of experience based on solid education. I base this not only on myself, but on someone I studied with who used and got great results from gear that was from the late 1970s. Like that wise teacher, I’ll put my training and experience up against anyone advertising a new kind of hardware any day.