| September 6, 2007
Images of brainwave activity, expressed as fractal images.
< Previous post Faking to be a doctor in order to speed
Next post > Medical office rents: A "career-ender"
Define your online reputation. Grow your platform. Be a dynamic speaker.
Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.
Interesting, but I am always a bit skeptical about new technology like this, especially EEG/neurofeedback technology. The reason is because the proponents of this technology (i.e., QEEG) tend to make all sorts of claims about it that can’t really be backed up.
Dominic A. Carone, Ph.D. Founder and Webmaster of MedFriendly.com and The MedFriendly blog.
I have a couple of comments to make (since this image was taken from the post on my blog, I figure I have an interest in this 😉
One — the images have nothing to do with neurofeedback per se. They are a graphical mapping of the nonlinear activity of the brain as per data taken from EEG recordings. So there is no “claim” there, just the mathematics.
Second, I declare my bias as a neurofeedback practitioner, but not a QEEG user — there is virtually no area of applied clinical interventions that can consistently back up its claims without negative data being available. Many drugs are used off-label, there are contradictory findings for the most commonly prescribed (e.g., antidepressants don’t do better than placebo in meta-analyses), many medications do harm that is initially unreported or unstudied — hence, the many lawsuits. Other clinical areas lack strong evidence of their functional efficacy (e.g., chiropractic, most rehab disciplines, most (non-cognitive)psychological interventions).
Nor do most critics of neurofeedback actually bother to keep up with the emerging evidence to really know.
Me thinks there is a double standard being applied to an area with both clinical and controlled studies of functional change and a history of safety in application.
Dr Karen Shuehttp://www.BrainandHealth.com
Past 6 Months
site by Out:think Group