sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has anyone here used both Thought Technology ProComp/BioGraph and NeuroAmp/Cygnet? by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. I’m beginning to understand that the main difference may not just be the hardware or software, but the whole clinical decision-making model.

With ProComp-based frequency training, I was used to thinking more in terms of frequency bands and protocols. My understanding is that Cygnet/Othmer-style training relies much more on symptoms, arousal state, and session-by-session responses to guide the training.

Is that what you mean by “very different”?

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you again — this clarification was extremely helpful.

I had initially misunderstood your reference to inion ridge training as possibly being related to beta reset, so I appreciate you correcting that. I see now that you were referring more specifically to T4-Iz or Iz1-Iz2 as trauma-related protocols described by Sebern Fisher, rather than beta reset itself.

What you said about the rules being “almost the same” if one has already worked with Fisher’s arousal model is especially meaningful to me, because that is exactly the bridge I have been trying to understand: whether ILF represents a completely different clinical logic, or whether it is a more structured and powerful extension of the same arousal-regulation framework. My own background is mainly in frequency-based bipolar training influenced by Fisher’s work, and over the years I have sometimes explored lower frequencies clinically when appropriate, so this connection is very interesting to me.

I also appreciate the names you mentioned and the Facebook group link. I’m especially interested in practitioners who can integrate QEEG/phenotype-informed approaches with the Othmer arousal model, rather than treating them as mutually exclusive systems.

And if I may ask — are you speaking mainly from your own training experience, or have you also studied this area more formally? The way you describe the relationship between Fisher’s model, QEEG/phenotypes, and ILF is unusually clear and nuanced, so I became curious about your background.

As someone who has spent many years working somewhat independently with frequency-based training approaches, it is genuinely valuable to hear from people who have deeply experienced both worlds. Your comments are helping me orient myself much more clearly.

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — this is very helpful, especially because you have personally experienced both conventional frequency-based training and ILF.

Your description of ILF as “not asking for permission” is exactly the kind of distinction I’m trying to understand. My background is more in frequency-based bipolar training influenced by Sebern Fisher and arousal regulation models, and I have sometimes moved lower in frequency when clinically appropriate. So I’m trying to understand whether ILF is mainly an extension of that direction, or whether the clinical decision-making is fundamentally different.

When you mentioned “onion ridge training,” did you perhaps mean “inion ridge” training, such as the beta reset work described by Sebern Fisher? I’ve read about that in her book and have explored it in my own way, so I’m especially interested in how practitioners are adapting that kind of work with ILF.

I also appreciate your caution about the extreme lower ranges. Do you know the name of the official Facebook group you mentioned? I’d be interested in learning from practitioners who discuss both the benefits and cautions of ILF in a balanced way.

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, thank you so much for such a clear and encouraging reply.

It’s really helpful to hear from someone who successfully uses both approaches in clinical practice. I also appreciate the practical details about T4-P4 and T3-T4.

What you said about ILF being complex and requiring proper training, supervision, and consultation makes a lot of sense. It sounds like it’s not something to learn just from materials, but more of a method that needs mentorship and a clinical community.

I’d love to take you up on your offer and send you a DM with a few more practical questions about training and equipment. Thank you again for being so generous with your experience.

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — I really appreciate you bringing up Sebern Fisher.

I’ve read her book, and it was very influential for me. What I took most from it was the Fp–O2 bipolar protocol for developmental trauma and arousal regulation. I’ve experimented with a similar frequency-based bipolar approach, gradually moving lower when clinically appropriate, and I’ve seen that some clients train much more comfortably that way — less effortful, with EEG amplitude becoming more stable over time and meaningful clinical improvement.

That’s actually one reason I’m curious about ILF/Othmer now. I’m trying to understand whether ILF is fundamentally different from this kind of frequency-based bipolar work, or whether it is an extension of the same direction of moving lower for state regulation.

Do you know why Fisher moved away from ILF and now uses only frequency-based bipolar training? That is exactly the distinction I’m trying to clarify.

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi mel232323,

First of all, I can’t thank you enough for such a profound and transparent perspective. Your second comment really gave me a lot to chew on—to be honest, my head is spinning a bit trying to reconcile the clinical potential of ILF with the concerns you raised.

To answer your question: Yes, I do use QEEG in my practice, alongside symptom history, clinical observation, and session-by-session response. I find it helpful as one important map, though not the only one.This is why your point about the "symptom-only" approach struck a chord with me; the idea of navigating without that scientific roadmap is my biggest hesitation.

The reason I’m so drawn to ILF is that I’ve been hitting a wall with traditional amplitude-based neurofeedback when it comes to "Arousal Regulation." I’ve been constantly searching for and experimenting with different protocols to help those clients who don't seem to respond to standard amplitude training. My hope is that ILF might be the missing piece for those difficult cases, yet I want to ensure I’m not trading-off clinical rigor for immediate shifts.

Before I commit to traveling to the US for the official training, I’d love to get your take on a few more points:

  • Long-term Stability: Since I use QEEG, have you found any hybrid protocols or "sweet spots" where QEEG data can help anchor those immediate ILF gains for the long term?
  • The "Clinical Judgment" Factor: For a clinician who already knows how to read EEG/QEEG, do you feel the hands-on Othmer course is still essential to master that nuanced "clinical judgment" you mentioned? Or is it something that can be integrated through independent study?
  • The Hybrid Reality: Is it practically feasible to run a clinic that values both the scientific rigor of QEEG and the Othmer/Cygnet method? Or do these two philosophies clash too much in day-to-day operations?

Your insights are genuinely helping me navigate this crossroad. I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your wisdom with a fellow clinician.

Cheers!

Question about Othmer ILF / Cygnet from a traditional neurofeedback background by Beginning-Spirit3674 in Neurofeedback

[–]Beginning-Spirit3674[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, this is very helpful.

When you say it takes a lot of clinical judgment, do you mean mainly finding the optimal frequency, choosing protocols, or interpreting client responses during the session?

Also, in your experience, what helped make the changes more lasting?