ILF is not ‘rewarding’ ILF, nor does it grossly inhibit 1-40 hz. It simply makes changes in ILF frequencies audible. There is a difference. I use ILF in my neurofeedback practice. ILF has the concept of “optimal [ILF] frequency”, but again, this is not a reward as in conventional neurofeedback.
The primary reason it CANNOT be a ‘reward’, is that ILF has cycle times (wavelengths) that take 10’s to possibly 100’s of seconds to complete. So conventional neurofeedback filters that detect say alpha activity within a few hundred milliseconds – cannot be of any use when the ILF frequencies are so so slow. Thus the strategy instead is to make audible or visible, the variations in the ILF directly, without trying to ‘reward’ anything.
Early Val Brown NeurOptimal protocols measured something he termed “turbulence”. In those days it was setup as a band based metric. The details of his present design are of course proprietary.
The original design placed almost inaudible, very slight ‘clicks’ at the points where the turbulence was detected. Brown stated that the turbulence was the result of the brain about to “change state”. So if the central nervous system (CNS) was alerted to these state changes, it could more effectively “stay on track” and not get pulled off into old unconscious thought streams and belief patterns.
So again, at least in that version of NeurOptimal, the clicks were NOT ‘inhibits’ as you say, but an alerting mechanism so that the brain could learn to be more resilient to stress and less distracted with old material. If the old stuff could be thought of as a type of “strange attractor”, then alerting the CNS when it is about to change state, becomes a “choice point” and gives the CNS an opportunity to avoid falling into those black holes and repetitive tape loops.
The idea is not to inhibit state changes, but to make the process less autopilot and more Self-directed. Something in the CNS learns to go down the state change paths that lead to more fruitful outcomes.