NeuroOptimal vs qEEG-Directed Neurofeedback: A Decision Tree (Use-Cases, Limits, Cost Logic)

General Discussion
, , , ,
1

I work with qEEG-guided, directed NF and often meet clients who tried NeuroOptimal. Here’s a neutral decision tree: when a non-directional wellness approach is “good enough” vs when I insist on mapping + targeted training.

**Practical takeaway

  • NeuroOptimal:** simple, well-tolerated, sometimes helpful for sleep/stress; evidence is more limited; hard to retarget when progress stalls.
  • qEEG-directed NF: more upfront work, but clear targets (bands/sites/networks) and data-driven pivots.

Criteria I use
- Symptom severity/complexity and comorbidities

  • Budget/adherence (incl. tolerance for the initial qEEG effort)
  • 2–3 measurable targets defined at baseline
  • 10–15 session checkpoint for either approach; if the needle doesn’t move, I pivot or pause.

Questions to the community

  1. When have you achieved solid results without mapping?

  2. When did mapping completely change your protocol choice?

  3. Your two best early metrics that predict mid-term response?

— Dan Miulescu, Clinical Psychologist | NeuroClinica (qEEG, LORETA)

1 Like
2

Following, interesting topic, appreciate it.

Have only worked with NeurOptimal personally, so can’t compare/contrast. That said, some people have pretty profound reactions, mainly for chronic dysregulation and hyperarousal. Would love to hear from folks who have experience with NO/other modalities, or who have done brain mapping with NO.