What's New in Neurofeedback

• Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors
• Mild brain injuries linked to sleep disorders
• Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate
• Brain Can Learn Fear By Seeing Others' Fears
• Playing Music Makes You Smart
• Technology Review: Fueling Brain Research
• Can a brain scan prove you're telling the truth?
• Quiz: How healthy is your brain?
• Boosting Brain Power May Be Steps Away

  All links at: news.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Brain_Research

Except for a handful of midline structures, every region of the brain has a partner, a homologue that performs a similar but complementary function. The homologue exists in the other hemisphere of the brain and is highly connected with its partner, perhap more connected to this cross-town rival than to any other structure on its own side of town (intrahemispheric). One theory of homologues is that they provide context for processing content, the surround that makes sense of the middle. Perhaps. Or perhaps they work in opposition to each other to disambiguate incoming sensory information. For instance, the left primary auditory cortex is specialized for processing phonemes (verbal sounds) and its homologue in the right processes environmental sounds and music, so at any time the words and music can be understood separately and together. Or the words and tone in speech. In QEEG analysis we have eight homologue site-pairs using the 10-20 electrode position system: F7 is with F8, F3 with F4, P3 with P4, etc. At AAPB this March we saw how damage (seizure focus) or disconnection (callosotomy) at one of the site-pairs produced energy disregulation at the other. Why this is the case is a matter of neuroscientific investigation, although my longstanding conception of the mind in terms of dimensionality may shed some light on the matter: what it means to have a dysfunction partner?

The role of homologues recently became a personal concern. We analyzed my autistic son's EEG at one of my workshops and determined quite clearly that he had excessive delta activity in his right temporal lobe. Cortical areas produce delta in isolation, when they are without substantial subcortical (white matter) innervation. Delta activity is normal for an infant's brain, given its limited connectivity, but not for a 9 year old's, which makes me suspect that this part of his brain never ripened, never connected subcortically. It remained infantile and any governance over the left temporal region (via the anterior commissure or anterior section of the corpus callosum) is minimal at best. Which means his left temporal lobe is developing alone, in isolation, unchecked by a partner, feral. While his right remains infantile, perhaps even bullied into submission by the governance of a mature homologue on the left.

It took me many years to finally get the nature of the left and right hemisphere function straight in my head. I knew the data and dozens of characterizations, but I always conceived the right hemisphere as infinite, holding all the varieties of personal experience in tow, while the left hemisphere was focal and therefore infinitesmal in its aspect. I also knew that the left brain was expressive, the right receptive, so I imagined the universe, as reflected by the marvelous 3-lb version we carry within our heads, was a creation derived from the freedom of the infinitesmal scurrying about unhinged by relational constraint (being so small) within the infinite. In other words agency came about from the small acting upon the large, the nothing freely skipping about within everything. Boy was I wrong! One day I tripped and forgot to fall...mentally, that is, and the proper arrangement fell into place. Reverse what I just said: The left acts because it is infinite and the right receives because it is nothing, i.e., infinitesmal in nature. Suddenly the split brain patients who claim to experience no change in their sense of self after a callosotomy make sense. We speak from the left brain and it's easy to see how the infinite wouldn't miss the infinitesmal, but not vice versa. The split brain data should have made me understand this from day one.

Georg Cantor was a mathematician who lived a century ago who understood infinity better than the rest of us. He broke from the Aristotlean tradition and conceive of some infinities as closed entities unto themselves, such as the set of natural numbers, and in so doing invented transfinite sets. Transfinity is based on the premise that not all infinities are created equal. Some infinities are larger than others. The set of rational numbers (fractions, integers) is infinite yet smaller than the set of real numbers (those decimal numbers without end). No two rational numbers can be close enough that a real number cannot squirm between them like a smaller cuter younger brother. It is this concept of scaleable infinities which helps me understand autism, my son's condition. In a nutshell, I believe he has too infinite a mind. That is, on the left temporal lobe he hasn't joined our infinity but staked out his own. Think of the mind as a rug extended across an infinite hallway with doors at either end. We suppose to cover the hallway floor but his rug is curled up behind the far door and leaves bare much of the floor at the other end.

Physicists say that nearly all of the matter of the universe is dark, 96% according to some estimates. Dark matter fails to emit enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly but its gravitational influence can be infered by the shape and motions of galaxies. It is the missing mass of the universe and it is all around us and even inside of us. We can think of dark energy and matter as that which is behind the hallway doors. It is that realm from which we pull when we create. We draw out dark energy (left brain creation or thoughts) or dark matter (right brain thoughts) and make it light. Dark energy are those infinities larger than our own; dark matter nothingness deeper than out own. Geniuses like Cantor expand our rug and pull much of the darkness into the hall, creating more light, and here we all sit, except my son. His rug does not cover the floor. Perhaps only a small fraction is left bare, a percent or less than ours, but it is enough to throw off his relations with the world.

Here are the four dimensions currently established in ourselves (universe) posed as four questions:

That singularity (alone) began the process, according to my reckoning, before the infinite (everything) is intriguing, if true. That the "center" of the universe is everywhere at once spatially and temporally means also livingly as well. We are each its center. How could it be otherwise. A beautiful way to live one's life.

But back to my son. The temporal lobe is where we finalize our relation to the world. We store in the medial portion and relate at the pole. Here we create two selves, a universal one and a unique autobiographical one. So my son falters in the autobiographical creation of a self (right temporal), and fails to say enough "no" to the question of constancy. His too infinite mind on the left (constant -- yes! yes! yes!) must be curbed, but only the zero can curb infinity.

Besides delta-downtraining, perhaps some autobiography training will help strength this area. Each day in school he should repeat what happened to him that day, and what happened to others around him, and build a story of his life. Like other autistics who hate routine changes, he needs to accept the inconstancy of life and not fear it. How else are we to move on to the fifth question....

-DK

News & Reviews NEW BOOKS

Rapid Review Neuroscience
by James Weyhenmeyer, Eve A. Gallman
Learn about the most important structure of the 21st century. --www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0323022618/eegspectrum

Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
by F de Waal, S Macedo, J Ober (Eds)
Illustrates the evolution of morality through primatology data, relevant to pleasure, addiction, sociality. --www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0: 0691124/eegspectrum

Alcohol Abuse Revolution: Complementary and Alternative ...
by Donna J. Cornett
Alternative interventions to reduce alcohol craving and consumption are described. --www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976372029/eegspectrum

Depression (Key Diseases Series)
by JL Levenson (Editor)
Depression in the medically ill, diagnosing and management of depression and other practice guidelines. --www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943126851/eegspectrum

Functional brain asymmetry in boys with Tourette syndrome. : Impaired callosal functioning in Tourette's, specifically shifting attention to the left ear, was found for tourette's. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17045315

Video game epilepsy in the twentieth century: a review. : Reviews how videogame use elicits seizures in some children. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17211654

Transcranial DC stimulation of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in depression. : tDCS has a less focal impact than rTMS, but it appears to induce a longer and stronger modulation of cortical excitability. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17166593

Sleep EEG after withdrawal from alcohol in alcohol-dependent patients. : An enhancement in the beta2 (24-32 Hz) was seen in REM sleep in relapsers compared to abstainers and controls, possibly indicative of dysfunctional arousal. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17207097

Neuropsychological assessment of adult ADHD : Adults with ADHD show more memory and attention problems under high mental load than response inhibition or vigilance issues. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17200879

Multimodal fMRI tractography in traumatic brain injury patients. : Anatomical analysis of white matter connectivity following TBI holds great promise. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17197198

Increased left prefrontal activation in unipolar depression : Activation of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with high cognitive load was associated with depression, using novel fMRI event related analyses. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17197035

Mismatched fMRI and EEG cortical source imaging: : Discusses technical issues in using fMRI constraints with EEG source derivation. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17203318

Anterior cingulate and medial orbitofrontal cortex in cocaine addiction. : A drug Stroop fMRI task may identified pathways recruited in drug-addicted individuals. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17197102

Conceptual pluralism may be a necessary stage of all disciplines. In fact the existence of clearly defined models competing against each other may be a positive thing. It may reflect a necessary stage, the passage from formative upstart to mature science. But such competition is just as likely to hinder advancement. Too much competition can keep everyone in the dark, out of the know, with too much interpretation spread thinly across too little data. A field can wallow in its own Dark Age. With too many Kings. Too many Popes.

Paradigms force us to make decisions, early and often. Paradigms drive scientific and clinical investigation; facts are collected selectively, studies devised entirely to refute or support one aspect of a model. The opposite is happening in (neuro)psychiatry today. Data are not being gathered selectively, but indiscriminately, atheoretically. Nearly every reasonable study from the past 30 years is being re-run nowadays, with an fMRI machine attached to the project. Will new insights be gained from all the billions of dollars spent? Had those resources been applied more cleverly, more discriminately, who knows? Neuroscience has always suffers from being data heavy, model weak.

Competition is at the root of creativity. In the middle half of the 20th century, two promising theories competed for the hearts and minds of physicists-cum-cosmologists: either the universe started with a Big Bang or it never had a start, always was, and always would be in a Steady State. They were opposing theories, contrary to the exclusion of the other. Whenever and wherever possible, data was collected and technology was developed in order to refute the other model. Sometimes it's not clear what data is relevant in the real world, what observations should be made. But with competition one's eyes are often widely opened, one's priorities become crystal clear. So was the case with the young field of cosmology. And from this structured antagonism arose many unanticipated bounties, from advances in radio telescopy to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.

Yet too much competition can bring on melee, a free-for-all, and the subsequent state of chaos and anarchy. Reviewing the upcoming SNR conference, the list of speakers and disparate philosophies behind their talks, I was reminded of a team of horses strapped together, all sweating at the bit, all pulling in every direction at once. The cart may lurch out of the muck every moment or so, but in which direction is anyone's guess. It has been 30 years since SMR conditioning was invented (or was it discovered?) and it seems like now it is the best of times and the worst of times. Everyone thinks they have the answer, everyone's technique and experience outtrumps all comers. This field does not have a single voice as some do, but instead makes a cacophony, a jarring, rarely attractive sound to the outside world. Can this be solve? Or is this unresolvable? Will brain sciences forever be like sausage or the law: to appreciate them, avoid attending their creation?

So what can be done? What might speed the process from gawky adolescent endeavor to mature and respect discipline?

We need head-to-head comparisons, to repeat Dick Stark's mantra -- a tournament, a series of jousts or contests enacted through edited books. In each edited volume, two models of protocol selection go head to head, lance to lance, study against study. Dedicate half a dozen chapters to each. All other contending theories wait on the sidelines for the next contest. It's a runoff election. The winner of the first contest is paired with the next most promising challenger in the next volume, etc. Like any fair contest we allow rematches, especially when past outcomes are unclear or new data demand it. Very quickly we should be able to sort this thing out.

We might compare first behavioral/symptomatic models of protocol selection compared to EEG-based protocol selection (EEG normalization), and let the better model win! Who knows? We may have a mature scientific discipline on our hands in no time.

DK (original from August 2001)