Equipment

How do you compare equipment when it's all new to you? Everything sounds good. Is your interest in the neatest games?  Does the game equate to efficacy?   Can you tell what is the best software?  How about just cheap and good?

Most clinicians don't realize - the smallest part of your initial investment in neurofeedback is equipment.  So pick the best you can find that will make you more successful at neurofeedback.  The more competent and confident at neurofeedback a clinician is, the faster he can add patients.   Being successful with patients is what makes a successful practice.  The faster you are successful, the more demand for neurofeedback. So your goal is to be good at neurofeedback faster and get the best equipment and training.

The cost of professional equipment ranges from $1000 to $10,000.  But what's the cost over time? The real cost is the per session cost.  Conservatively, even if you just see a few clients per month, it's going to be about $.50 per session to $5 per session max.  That's not a lot of money and it's a small part of total costs. Again, choose the equipment that can make you the most successful.  One additional client once every few months more than pays for the whole machine.

What makes good equipment?
Here are some criteria:

Ease of use.  You don't know the ease of use till you've been using a system for a number of months. That's true for all software, not just neurofeedback.  The important factors: the ease of learning,  the ease of making changes, the ease of making  training adjustments on the fly, and the ease of setting up new clients.  How quickly can you get the client running each time?  This is subtle and it's the difference in better software.  Better software becomes more appreciated over time for its design. But it's hard to pick out. In a small field where volume is pretty low, it also tends to cost more.

How important are games? 
Many people think neat games are important. But history suggests something different.  Some of the more "boring games" have been very successful in long term improvements. Are highly stimulating games optimal for learning?  How well crafted is each game for giving feedback?  Can the therapist information be used productively as client training?  Again, every system has a variety of good games.  Trying to choose by looking at games is in may respects the least important criteria for choosing.  The exception is (and there are a few) games that have been proven over a very long time to be productive clinically.  That's the most important criteria for games, not how they look.  From a software standpoint, adjusting the games to be more sensitive for feedback and brain state is a whole other level of design and programming that you won't be able to judge.  It's too subtle.  It only shows up in proven clinical efficacy over a large number of clients and clinicians.

What about programmability or customization? 
This means being able to make a lot of changes.  More options and more programmability, generally makes for more complexity. They are often less expensive, but it's incredibly hard to design a program with lots of options and still have an easy to use system.  Better design can cost more.  There are a number of neurofeedback tools that allow a lot of customization but they are not so simple to use.   If you're pretty technical, this may not be an issue.  If your focus is more clinical, looking for ease of use and less complex is probably more productive. 

What about the EEG amplifier? 
This also makes a big difference. We always suggest - invest in the best amp possible.  There are a number of less expensive, lower quality amps.  They do not have the same level of data resolution.  This affects feedback.  For many clients, they may not notice, the feedback on the less expensive amps will be sufficient.  But there are brains - depending on the type of EEG they have, that will not get as good feedback and response on the less expensive amps. If it even happens for one out of ten clients, it's not worth it.  Because you won't know which one out of ten.  Quality should be the highest criteria.  Get a 12 bit amp or higher is our recommendation.    

EEG Screens.
Really good EEG screens show multiple easy-to-see EEG bands and spectral displays.  Many clinicians early in the process don't appreciate the clinical value of this information, because they don't yet have a clue what they are looking at.  Many systems may have spectral and no EEG. Or very limited EEGs.  As you gain experience, the subtle information a really good display gives a good clinician becomes more and more important.  This is because it is presenting you with how your client's brain is changing and responding to the training.

Reporting and review capabilities. 
Can you easily replay the EEG to more closely look at issues in the EEG?  Can you easily identify and play a segment?  Can the review reports give you measures of learning?  Are they easy to read?  Do they help you understand improvements in variability and amplitude?  Can you quickly review all the sessions and find what you've done in the past with the client? Do you have an audit history of sessions (incredibly important if you ever hire technicians to run sessions).  These also are difficult to assess till you have gained experience.

You grow into the best software.  You appreciate it more over time. It's often not the flashiest software, and it's seldom the cheapest.  Ease of use is ultimately boring. But that's the software that lasts the longest, and is the most productive.  This again, is not just true of software in neurofeedback. It's true for all good software.  When you're new is the hardest time to assess it, because it's hard to know what to look for.

You'll have a better understanding, or at least appreciation, for software and a system after you've taken a course.