Is there really no affordable + user friendly Neurofeedback hardware/software out there?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f374a75f3e0> #<Tag:0x00007f374a75f2a0> #<Tag:0x00007f374a75f0e8> #<Tag:0x00007f374a75ef30> #<Tag:0x00007f374a75edf0>


Thanks for joining the discussion @Stefan. I’ve been experimenting with OpenBCI, but haven’t dug into neurofeedback yet, and I have a few questions for my own edification.

I’m assuming you’re referring to OpenEXG, am I correct? (Also, I wasn’t sure whether OpenHardwareEXG is related to your project or just has a similar name…)

What two-channel EEG system would you recommend for neurofeedback?

Do you know of any kind of Wiki or guide to neurofeedback protocols, so I could learn more about how to implement a particular protocol and how it works? I’m thinking of a software/hardware agnostic directory with info like:

  • description of the protocol (what frequency/frequencies are being uptrained/downtrained)
  • the protocol’s intended effect, and why is produces it (if it’s not self evident)
  • recommended electrode montage
  • example algorithm to detect the if feedback conditions are met
  • recommended feedback modality

If there was such a resource, it’d sure be very handy for folks new to neurofeedback. If there isn’t, somebody should make it. (I don’t know enough about the protocols to be able to generate the content, but I could help with other areas).


@AdamM Thanks. I’ll wait for the UltraCortex sale i think. Sticking those to my head is elaborate and messy, and I wouldn’t want to do it for no specific reason, or just to see my brainwaves. My main interesting in any of this is Nuerofeedback for both personal use and research, the second is sleep research and sleep applications.

@Stefan I am not sure what kind of NF you are referring to but from what I understand 2 channel gives you very little to play with. Even in training for things like attention, let alone things like sleep spindles. Most if not all of the comprehensive scientific studies are conducted with a full head QEEG, not 2 channels. I have the Muse, and I am not looking to simply gain a little more “calm” and “focus”, which I feel I gain just as much from meditation itself than from the feedback provided by the system.

So unless we are using the same terms to mean different things, I don’t think we are on the same page. And if you are absolutely certain there are, as the title of my post asks, “user-friendly” neurofeedback systems, I would love links to some examples.

This line seem to miss completely what I am asking about.


@curiositry I somehow got my password screwed up and couldn’t reset it (system always tells me the link is too old and I should click on forgot password again). So now I am Stefanj :smile:

Well not really, OpenEXG was the first design, but that is rather “old”. I did some further work after that, which was never published. Some people will know that I even developed my own, low-cost 8/16 channel unipolar amplifier. The prototype is still lying on my desk… but I never got to write the embedded software for it. What actually happened is that due to the $300 Emotiv’s lack of raw EEG data, I wanted to rewrite the firmware of that device’s dsPIC. But my comments regarding the low input-Z of that design are well know… I came to the conclusion that spending my time re-writing code would be a waste. So then I thought OK, let’s spin a new hardware design, based on some ideas of Emotiv. At the end, my design diverted quite a bit, I used a different 16-bit ADC and different microprocessor, it was also not a wireless solution.

If I where to buy a 2-channel amplifier I would try the Neurobit Optima-2. Pocket-Neurobics seems to have some nice stuff as well, but I am hesitant recommending it. The old Pendants where very popular but the build quality was plain crap. Even their frontend design was lousy, not having ANY static protection or EMI filtering. At least on the one model that I got to inspect. I hope and think that Neurobics improved, but you know what they say about a leopards spots… can it change them?

I have been out of touch with NFB and EEG hardware dev. for the last 2 years, so I lost touch a bit. But I’d say that anyone interested in NFB should subscribe to the yahoo braintrainer group and follow their discussions. That is my recommendation.


@Jay If I speak of neurofeedback (NFB), I refer to the things the Othmers do and that Peter van Deusen (TLC) does. Protocols for ADHD, OCD, Autism, PTSD, depression, dyslexia, sleep insomnia, brain balancing, etc.

You are right that the scientific studies on things like sleep, etc. are mostly done on 24/32/64, etc. channel equipment. But clinical applications are more concerned with mapping the brain, rather than “closing the loop”. The medical profession still largely regards NFB as some sort of quackery. This view comes courtesy of big Pharma who will attack and black-smear any treatment regime that might reduce their profit takings on the little useless pills.


@Stefanj I have not seen any studies or protocols for the above done with 2 channels or anything less than 24. Do you have any links?

I do agree about the medical profession still being problematic with all of this but there are legit people who are well regarded in scientific circles (like Adam Gazeley) who are doing with that’s being taken seriously. But again, none of what they do either is with minimal brain wave reading, it’s all full head.


Jay, I assume you’ve seen Pete Van Deusen’s Brain-Trainer site. An abbreviated or full head assessment is done. Then protocols recommended, typically 2 channel; but also 4 channel. Most home users of this system are using the Pocket-Neurobics 2 or 4 channel amps. Stefan Jung has already mentioned it. I’ve used Pete’s protocols since 2008, they are effective. Bioexplorer and Pete’s protocols are also a great jumping off point for writing your own protocols.

Many professional neurofeedback trainers do 2 and 4 channel training: Brainmaster, Thought Technology, EEGer, Cygnet (Othmer), LENS, NeurOptimal, NewMind (Richard Soutar), etc. Yes, a small minority are using full cap sLORETA, but that’s expensive with commercial systems, $6000 and up. If you want to do Z-score training, add in the normative database. Obviously consumer / home users are going to bring all of this down from the stratosphere. But don’t dismiss 2 and 4 channel training protocols.


I'm considering purchasing a system for home training, please advise


Thanks William. So please help me understand here, as I seem to be missing something or have some wrong information or something. I also definitely have a bias against websites that have not been updated since the 90’s (seriously, these are killing me).

  1. If you agree that one needs a full head assessment, a 2 channel system isn’t sufficient. No?

  2. There is no one single site that I’ve landed on, including all the ones that you mention, that have only a few or a single thing that you buy that is everything you need, pre built, easy to use and affordable. So again, and feel free to call me stupid here (it just might be the case), but it is not clear at all what I can buy, how do I use it and what does it do.

If you are willing to indulge me (any of you), this might clarify my issue: imagine I am a non technical person who just heard about neurofeedback for the first time today, I come to you and say, “that sounds amazing, I can use a device and improve my brain or cognitive performance or mental states, or my sleep etc’? sweet, where do I buy one of these? and how do I use it?” What would you say?

If we just take the example you linked to, which is actually the only place I found anything remotely close to a “everything you need” offer, that starts at $3500. So again, maybe the answer is, there isn’t anything out there like what you are asking and the only thing is too expensive and everything is not user friendly or incomplete. Or i’m still missing something and your answer would be something else. I do hope to understand why most here seem to think I am way off.



Jay, hi.

Pete has a variety of packages on his site. The entry point is about $1000 which includes a Pocket-Neurobics 2 channel amp and Bioexplorer. Another hundred or so dollars for a subscription to Pete’s protocol package.

The whole head assessments are done with 2 or 4 channel amps, 2 or 4 channels at a time. Brainmaster has a similar concept called Mini-Q. Yes, it’s not quite as accurate as a full 19 channel parallel QEEG. But many clinicians use these Mini-Q type of assessments. Another popular one is the Swingle Clinical-Q, similar idea.

After doing your home assessment, you can send the data in to Pete and he’ll look it over and send you a protocol list that you can run. You could also devise this using your own skills, if you take one of his tutorial courses. His Excel spreadsheet can process your data and do some summary stats.

Granted, this might not be as turnkey as you are looking for. But in a sense you are learning some basic “auto-mechanic” skills. So you definitely need some familiarity with this level to perform and monitor your own home training.

I think you said you were familiar with the NeurOptimal system. This is the only one I know that is completely automatic. It’s working on different concepts than traditional band training. So does not have the need for assessment. Although those stats are available with the full version (at the C3 C4 sites.)



Hi Jay!

In my experience, there are no neurofeedback solutions that are both completely automated (require no technical skill whatsoever) and work for everybody. Neurofeedback depends highly on the individual, which makes it really hard to automate the protocols.
The products that promise a one-click solution always rely on very simple protocols that work on a broad range of individuals, to some extent.

This explains the lack of easy-to-use products, but not the high price. I’m not sure why even non-certified devices and software is sold at such high prices. The only explanation I have: Because they can. Most EEG devices and software is bought for medical and research applications with money from large budgets. These customers also almost always require that the software and devices are medically certified, which is highly expensive for the manufacturers.

I cannot recommend any of the medical grade products for private use - they are just not worth it and require a lot of knowledge to operate. I could, however, recommend consumer devices like the InteraXon Muse or devices from Emotiv. They are truly the future of personal EEG, and there are a lot more devices to come in the future. Their signal quality is surprisingly good, most of the limitation is caused by the dry electrodes (which is the core problem the EEG device makers are working on). Wet electrodes don’t sell.

I suggest you get an Insight (better spatial resolution) or a Muse (only frontal lobe, ear electrodes are useless) and check out our neuromore Studio v1.0, which we will release next week. It supports the Insight ;).
It’s not a one-click solution but it allows you to experiment, build own protocols and do everything you can think of with the measured data. You can even create the neuroptimal protocol, if you know how it works.

Oh I just read that you already have an OpenBCI; we currently support that on windows, too. And BTW: precise electrode placement does only matter if you got many electrodes and want high spatial resolution! If you measure only frontal lobe or the left/right hemisphere the location does not matter very much.
You can also buy dry electrodes and build a simple headset from a cap or elastic straps yourself.

Message me if you have any questions!


  • Manu


Manu, thanks for that reply. Can you clarify the business model for neuromore? Will the Studio always be free, or are you looking to transition to some kind of Freemium model. Your website mentions that the ‘engine’ and the Studio are separate entities. Are you hoping to license the engine to neurofeedback app builders, etc.

Your statement that NeurOptimal “relies on very simple protocols” is not true. Do some investigation into Val Brown’s research.

William Croft, OpenBCI


@Manuel_Jerger: Welcome to the forum, and thanks for joining the discussion! Neuromore looks quite interesting, and I look forward to testing it with the OpenBCI.

I second @wjcroft’s question about the long-term business model — it looks like you’ve got plenty of people with business background on your team. I assume they are there for something other than releasing free software. :smile:

Will neuromore come with sample NFB protocols, or do you have plans to develop a way for your users to share and collaborate on protocols, as @Curiositry suggested?

Perhaps it is a result of my general ignorance about how most neurofeedback protocols work, but wouldn’t it be possible to establish a software-independent standard format (perhaps XML-based) that could then be shared and used in various systems (with conversion/translation as necessary)? I’m curious what those experienced with NFB think about this idea.


Hi wjcroft, AdamM!

I can’t disclose our business model right now (soon to be unveiled…), but I can tell you that neuromore will always be supportive of the maker community and users that want to experiment for themselves. There are a lot of people holding EEG headsets in their hands right now who are looking for processing software and can’t find anything useful (I’m looking at you, Emotiv).

@wjcroft Thanks for note, I’ll dive further into Val Brown’s research; but my general impression was that protocol is actually very simple (the research most likely isn’t, of course)

@AdamM: Right now our users can create their own classifiers (that’s what we call the protocols) with the Studio and share them with others. We would very much like to see a whole community develop around our Tool. Everyone should be able to create stuff with our tools for free, as long as they don’t use it commercially. We will not be making our money with makers.

Regarding NFB protocols: We provide some simple example classifiers, but they are mostly used for demonstrations of our features. We will provide working and well-known NFB protocols for all supported devices soon.
And regarding the universal NFB protocol: I guess it’s possible, but only if one entity dictates the format. Maybe we should :D.

Does anyone know any NFB protocol formats that are commonly used? I guess every tool uses its own?

  • manu


@JAY I have started writing a reply a few days ago but didn’t finish or post it. I see there have been some more discussions since I checked last. NFB is an extremely technical field. It is also multi-disciplinary. For that reason you will NEVER find a simple turn-key solution. Here are my (outdated?) comments:

24-channel NFB? Wow, this science must have moved on at a break-neck speed these last two years. No, I don’t have links to 2-channel NFB protocols, research papers or whatever. Have you got links, research papers, etc. to 24-channel NFB?

NFB practitioners, those that do NFB to earn a living, and Neuroscientists could not sit further on opposite ends of the table. And ditto for the equipment they use. I have followed the yahoo braintrainer group for at least three years (I still keep an eye on them, but have not actively followed them the last 2 or 3 years due to time constrains). I repeat, these guys use two-channel equipment and protocols. Some people have brought the 4-channel Q-Wiz ($1000) and some people have the Optima-4, also a 4-channel amp. A 4-channel system will speed up the TLC mapping (a sort of time-division-multiplexed qEEG) But otherwise, while I was still actively following them, nobody would have known what to do with 2 extra channels. I think Stephan Odermatt (Switzerland) was one of the first people to tinker and develop some 4-ch BE protocols. It is likely that Peter might have included some 4-ch protocol support into his updated TLC package, simply due to the availability of the above-mentioned amplifiers at affordable prices.

Peter van Deusen was a hospital administrator many, many years ago, but today, NFB is all he does. I have a tremendous respect for him, he and also many of his followers on his user group, are extremely helpful. His website is He sells equipment, his TLC training programs and NFB protocol suite for BioExplorer.

To learn NFB will cost money. Going the TLC route will be the most cost effective way. There are many other people and organizations that give training but these will literally cost thousands of US$. Most of these will also lock you into using their hardware and software. For instance, the Othmers ( use their Neuroamp and Cygnet. Cygnet is a derivative of Jarek Foltynskis’ BioEra.

For those that can afford it, go buy a 4-channel Optima-4 or the Q-Wiz, otherwise even a second-hand Pendant, QDS Focus or even an openEEG amp will be sufficient to start learning. Don’t spend too much money because there is most probably only a 20% chance that you will stick it out.

Jay, I gather you have openBCI. I would recommend that you house it in an enclosure and fit it with at least a few DIN sockets. Then buy yourself some DIN cables and decent electrodes. BTW, I am not sure if openBCI has BE support. Forget the idea of using dry electrodes. Prep your sites and use conductive paste. Only work with two channels for now. So you will only use about 4 or 5 electrodes and placement is then not too difficult or critical. Then download a demo version of BioExplorer and try out the sample protocols that are included. Join braintrainer and become a silent observer. Look at the TLC packages and consider if you are willing to fork out the money for that. Trying to learn NFB completely on your own without spending some money on training will exasperate the learning curve and you are unlikely to see it through.

You need to learn to crawl before you can walk. And you need to walk before you can run. Stop day-dreaming about 24-channel NFB and learn to ride a bicycle first. There are enough practical challenges to overcome. Placing electrodes. Getting good contact. Reducing 50/60Hz noise. Learn to live with movement artifacts, etc., etc. You need a lot of patience. You need to tolerate having gung in your hair (conductive paste). Learn to accept that you will NOT be able to do NFB by simply placing an Emotiv-like spider onto your head.

Finally a bit of a warning. A lot of people will disagree with me: I believe that NFB can be very effective when performed correctly. I also believe it can be “damaging” if done incorrectly. An experienced NFB practitioner, when confronted with a negative outcome can simply undo such. A novice might not. That is also the reason I am against BCI games. A BCI-game will “close the loop” resulting in uncontrolled and not-understood (by the game developer) NFB. The same Gaming algorithm can (potentially) be used over and over for hours on end… A shrink will surely tell you that playing an ordinary game for so many hours is no good, not to mention BCI gaming! Fortunately, for the “bang, bang, you are dead” gaming junkie, BCI-games will always be lethargic and too in-accurate to control and will therefore always remain on the fringe.

I do not claim that any and all BCI-games can be damaging, it is a matter of how these games are implemented. Damage is a possibility. Similarly, I am sure there are quite a few NFB protocols that a newbie could safely experiment with. Please don’t ask me what those might be. I don’t operate in that domain. I just know enough to be dangerous – LOL.

Use the contents of this little assay or don’t use it. My time is an as scarce commodity as ever, and I will not be able to go into endless message exchanges here or elsewhere.


Thanks @Manuel_Jerger, I actually have both the Muse and OpenBCI. I’ve been watching Neuromore on twitter since it popped up on one of these forums. Looks really promising.

@Stefanj, forgive me Stefan, I think this is where my ignorance on this subject trips me (which is probably because it is such a technical field). When you say channels, I thought you mean electrodes (perhaps you still do), i’ve tried to read up about it again and if that’s the case, this is what I don’t get, brainwaves are measured with a head covered in a lot of electrodes but then the training is done only with a couple of them? Again, I feel like I am missing or misunderstanding something. How does that even work?

I’ve also heard that NFB can be damaging if done incorrectly. That’s part of my worry about just trying it myself with some put together parts and software. I’ve also heard Andrew Hill on a few podcasts describe cases of where this happened. And in addition to that, in a conversation with him he at least claims that even emotiv and Muse are not sufficient to make any useful change with their neurofeedback due to both lack of sufficient electrodes (Muse has 5 if we don’t count the ears, right?) as well as the placement being frontal lobe only. But of course Andrew has a clinic where they offer NFB services at $100 per session so I have no idea if he is biased or not. I don’t think he is but I don’t know enough to even begin to guess.

Thanks again for the info, did not mean to waste your time or drag you into a pointless discussion with a novice. I’m just trying to understand how all this works and if I can actually benefit from this technology before i’m 80 years old or without coughing up $4000. Doesn’t look like it right now.


Jay, did you look around Pete van Deusen’s site? If you go through some of the tutorial material there you can get an overview of the process. Yes, the brainmap portion does sample from a larger set of electrodes (typically just 2 or 4 channels at a time.) To build up a map of points containing say from 10 to 19 or 20 sites. (Using the 10-20 map locations.)

After the map is generated and analyzed (with an Excel spreadsheet and probably with Pete’s consult as you get started.) You then run on your own a small group of ‘protocols’ that nudge the brainwaves in the desired directions. Rewarding some frequency bands / locations. Inhibiting other bands. This training again uses a small number of channels, mostly 2 and 4 channels at a time. After some number of trainings / sessions, another map is generated to see how things are progressing, and if adjustments in the protocols need to be made.

re: your $4000 figure; I mentioned on a previous post in this thread that you can get started with Pete’s system for about $1000. This covers the Pocket Neurobics amp, Bioexplorer, and Pete’s protocol package. It would also be wise to have some hand holding by Pete or someone on his staff to answer your questions, help with the protocol selection. This occasional consult will cost you extra, but not that much.



Thanks @wjcroft, i have looked at it. But forgive me, and i really don’t mean to sound dismissive, but to me his website/offers is the epitome of the problem I was hoping to avoid.

For one, $1000 is not cheap either, but it definitely beats 4K. However nothing I find on that site gives me the confidence that any of what is sold there is something I can do on my own, let alone with a “cobble together on your own” kind of thing (including the equipment, the protocols, and the learning curve). + the dangers of doing it wrong. Just look at Stefan’s description/recommendations for what I should do. Just reading that feels overwhelming, I can’t imagine what trying to actually do it would feel like.

Maybe my bar is too high, due to my lack of understanding of the complexity of all of this, and again, perhaps I am not as technical as I had hoped, the more I learn the stupider i feel. But everything I see and read there screams to me that it’s not worth messing with. If the barrier is $1000 + MAJOR complexity, I rather just try to raise $4000 and trust an expert to take care of everything.

Again, I could be wrong, but my sense is that the technology to make this both accessible and affordable is already here, but the demand never existed before now. Messing with these very un-user friendly systems is just not something I have the capacity or desire to deal with anymore.

When the Muse came out I was hoping that it would be the solution to all of this, but it looks like it might just be a stepping stone towards it. For now, I have to be either patient or rich.

I watch videos like this (especially from around min 30) where they talk about “we achieved this” and “we achieved that” using neurofeedback, in some cases even years ago, and I think, where is all this technology? just in the lab? Same thing with the work that Adam Gazzaley is doing. These people have been at it for a long time and according to the scientific papers they all publish they are doing some amazing things, and yet none of it is accessible to anyone. Drives me crazy. (sorry for the rant)


@Jay, hi. Yes thanks for that video of Jay Gunkelman, I watched that livestreaming and have been forwarding the link on Twitter and emails.

re: “nothing… gives me the confidence… there is something I can do on my own”. @Stefanj recommended that you checkout Pete’s Brain-Trainer Yahoo group. You can see folks there navigating the complexities. You’re obviously a geek, this is not hard.

If you are just looking for enhanced meditative / altered states, then the brainmap part is not so necessary. Remember, many are using Pete’s protocols for situations such as ADHD, where a careful assessment is important before “jumping in” assuming you know what to do.

JayG mentioned Jim Hardt’s work. That makes pretty outrageous claims “40 years of Zen in 1 week”. You can do quite well in a similar vein with simpler 2, 4, or 5 channel alpha synchrony protocols. Open Focus uses a 5 channel version at Fpz Oz Cz T3 T4. These 5 channels are summed and the reward is based on that amplitude. Another general purpose protocol is Alpha-Theta, to produce hypnogogic states.

Many of the headsets come with simple protocols that train up or down certain bands. If that is what you want to do, I think you already have it. You could take your Muse and the neuromore and do whatever you want. OpenBCI would be needed for the Open Focus if you want the 5 channel version.

Neurofeedback as a clinical modality, or Brain-Trainer style map assessments are needed to handle the general case. You don’t want to make assumptions about what is going on. That is the source of the cautions you are seeing. With a map and help with the interpretation, arbitrary home protocols then become possible.

High end is another story altogether, and is only being sold to licensed practitioners, from companies like Brainmaster, where you see Z-score training, sLORETA (training at 3D sites, not just at the surface), etc. But you can do a whole lot with just 2 channels and patience.

I just forwarded to Pete an email with links to the neuromore site. I think it would be a stellar idea if neuromore started collaborating with him to support his protocols on neuromore headsets and amps.


@Jay, Yes the electrode issue is the first confusing bit for newbies. EEG amplifiers of 1, 2 and 4 channel design almost 100% use an instrumentation amplifier at the front-end which is a difference amplifier. I.e. it has a positive polarity input and a negative polarity input. The amplifier only amplifies the DIFFERENCE between Inp+ and Inp-. Any common mode signal such as noise, 50/60Hz mains pickup, etc. is rejected.

The negative input is also called the reference input and most of the time, the reference inputs of 2, 3 or 4 channels are all connected together with jumper cables and run via single cable to ONE electrode. (Doing that however has a disadvantage in noise suppression).

You also need another electrode on your head normally called the DRL. The name DRL comes from ECG equipment and it’s application where it stands for Driven Right Leg. It is not an input to the amplifier, but as the name suggests, an OUTPUT of the amp and “drives” the “body” to a DC level that falls within the dynamic range of the amplifier.

So for 1-channel you need a minimum of 3 electrodes (CH1+, CH1- and DRL).
For 2 channels you need a minimum of 4 electrodes (CH1+. CH2+, [CH1- and CH2- combined] and DRL.

Now what about many channel amplifiers? Instrumentation amplifiers are rather expensive when used in quantities of 8, 16, 24, 32 or even more. Not only that, but adding so many extra reference input connectors (Normally touch-proof medical DIN connectors) would make equipment (1) expensive, (2) physically much larger and (3) would be a nightmare to use because the user would end up having to jumper all these inputs together.

I already pointed out that if you jumper the reference inputs on a 2-channel amplifier, you will (at least theoretically) deteriorate the amplifier’s capability to reject common mode noise. With a 8 or 16 or more channel amplifier that would be even more so. For all these reasons, many channel amplifiers as used for BCI and clinics, etc. are just about always monopolar or also called unipolar amplifiers. These only have one input per channel.

Emotiv is a 14 channel monopolar design. Emotiv also uses a DRL but it has another common input called CMS (common sense input) used as a overall amplifier ground reference.

I have not had the opportunity to open and inspect any other many-channel amplifiers, but the CMS/DRL arrangement I believe is normal practice when using monopolar amplifiers.

Some, or even many/most professional amplifiers can be configured as differential amplifiers. But normally, in that case, two monopolar channels are used and the data is subtracted in the digital domain. This will give a poor common mode rejection ratio, and thus not very good noise suppression.

OpenBCI uses the Texas Instrument’s ADS1299 chip which has differential inputs (but I don’t believe that they have true INA’s implemented in silicon).

Finally, I don’t think a poor performing amplifier will be able to cause NFB “damage”. If the hardware is lousy, your measured signals will be more noise than actual real EEG data. If you process that noise and feed it back to your brain, the latter will not be able to lock on it. Only if you have REAL EEG data, obtained from self, you apply a protocol and close the loop, can that potentially cause negative consequences due to inappropriate selected/designed NFB protocol(s).

In the above paragraph, I refer to “self”. What I mean is this: where you to feed processed (protocolled) data from a different person other than yourself, that too would be meaningless to your own brain. Your brain would simply reject that as noise. ALSO, there is a certain data latency. This is mostly due to the finite time your PC uses to process the data according to your NFB protocol. For NFB, this time should be kept as short as possible. If it would take a second or longer to process and feed back the data, that TOO would be not acceptable for your brain, and again, it would simply be seen as some noise.

I am only scratching the surface here… but yeah, that is how it is with a complicated subject matter.


Stefan, hi.

ADS1299 uses a Delta Sigma design, so does away for the need of Instrumentation Amplifiers.

Pins are brought out for either per channel differential + - access. Or can use a common reference, which is the default. The DRL you mention is called Bias on the ADS1299, and has the same function.


Below I’ve cut and pasted a recent post by Pete van Deusen on his Yahoo Group called “braintrainer”. It’s from last week, and he mentions a new blog series starting in September. It will be chapters from his upcoming book. Once that link is up on his site, you can subscribe and get each new post. (Not up until September.)

Aug 17 3:31 PM

A number of you have been after me for a while–some for QUITE a while–to begin putting down my approach to brains and brain-training in book form. Now, as the TLC7 nears a level of stability, we have a sophisticated but simple, powerful but cost-effective integrated system, and I have Karen and Rah to do all my work for me in the US and Viviane, Gislaine and Mariana in Brazil, I’m running out of excuses.

I’ve decided to write at least the first part of the book in full view (makes it harder to wimp out) by beginning a blog in September. It will be accessible on the brain-trainer site, and you’ll be able to subscribe to it, so you get a reminder when each new segment comes out (at least weekly).

The working title of the book is Brain Magic: Making Your Life Come True. In Part I, it will set forth my rather “off-center” view of what happens when we train a brain, who should be able to do it, for what reasons and some alternative views of how it works. Part II will provide a detailed view of the practical issues of brain training as a kind of manual or guide.

Alternating with the articles each week will be a post of a question and answer relating to specific issues.

Hope you’ll find this interesting and give it a look. If you like it, subscribe and tell your friends about it. I hope it will be as entertaining as it is informative and will help us all to define a more inclusive view of this remarkable technology.

Stay tuned,


Peter Van Deusen
USA 678 224 5895
BR 47 3346 6235
The Learning Curve, Inc.