Quantitative EEG

What is a qEEG?
(sometimes called a “Q”)                        
In very simple terms, a quantitative EEG is a computer analysis of the EEG signal, typically using 19 or more channels of simultaneous EEG recording under specific recording conditions.  This EEG data is compared against a reference database of other “normal” EEGs.  The analysis identifies and highlights variations from the norm.          

How important is combining qEEG with neurofeedback?         
Some clinicians and scientists insist you should use a qEEG on every neurofeedback client to be ethical, or science-based, or thorough.  Many others don’t agree, pointing out that most clients over the years have gotten help with neurofeedback without qEEG's.

Can I use a qEEG without training or experience?                     
There’s a pretty big learning curve to interpret qEEG's. Some clinicians tackle that, and feel it’s important to learn it themselves.  Others find that by using a service that provides analysis and interpretation of the qEEG, a clinician can get started quickly without a big learning curve. But can you use the reports effectively - even from a service without getting training?     

Should I attempt to learn neurofeedback training and qEEG at the same time?
If you are trying to get started in neurofeedback, the learning curve is fairly steep.  If you are getting starting in qEEG, the learning curve can be even steeper.  There may be some technically oriented individuals who can tackle both at the same time.  We typically suggest - learn the basics of neurofeedback first and then tackle the qEEG. If you need a qEEG report early on, send it to someone else to record and get help with protocols from someone already experienced.  Note that there may be people in the field who disagree with this model and would encourage you to learn both from the beginning.  

Can qEEG's improve neurofeedback training?                                      
There is ongoing debate of this subject. When you talk with clinicians with a lot of experience using qEEG's, they always say yes, it usually helps the training decisions - because the qEEG gives you more clarity about what's happening in the brain.  When clinicians who are fairly new or have not developed much expertise with qEEG work with it, they often say they don't get consistent help from the information.  There are some experienced clinicians who fall in the middle - they feel a qEEG can be very helpful, but that they know enough based on other information that it's not always needed. 

Is it mportant to combine the EEG report with clinical data, or can I work from the EEG itself?
Many experienced clinicians and qEEG providers feel it's very important to correlate the EEG and qEEG report.  The qEEG is a statistical report.  If it's accurate, it should have some correlation to the clients presenting symptoms - from a neurophysiological perspective.  For example, if they have bad problems with organization and their report shows excessive slowing pre-frontally (executive function), the two correlate nicely.  However with the same problem, if there were no problems in the qEEG except at the right temporal lobe, there may need to be careful interpretation of the symptoms the client is reporting.  If the client reported a problem and the qEEG report didn't correlate well, this is also valuable clinically.     

Is there clinical information in the EEG that isn't in the qEEG?
Yes.  The qEEG is an average of the EEG over time.  There are details or events in the EEG that may get lost (averaged out) in the qEEG.  Both are actually important to look at.  Certain spikes or unusual periodic bursts in the EEG, or unusual wave forms may all be significant, but not show up in the qEEG report itself.    

Do I need to buy special qEEG equipment?                                 
You either need special equipment, or you need to send your client/patient to a location that records the EEG for you.  Though hospitals and neurologists have EEG recording equipment, it's rare that they are compatible with the requirements needed to run neurofeedback oriented qEEG's.  There are a variety of equipment options, each with pros and cons.  Some services may even provide you the equipment for free (1 week a month) if you pay for several of their qEEG reports monthly.   You may also be able to find a local EEG tech to do the recordings, but not to interpret the report. 

How many qEEG's do I need to justify my own equipment and software?
If you average 2-3 qEEG's a month, it probably justifies a 19+ channel digital EEG machine ($200-350 leased a month or $8-12k outlay).  Once people have a qEEG machine, they usually end up offering it to more of their clients.  It can be a useful too for many clients, who find the concept of getting a brain map very credible.     

Should I use a qEEG service or analyze the EEG data myself?  
If you choose to get equipment and learn to do qEEG reports yourself, there’s a big learning curve.  It is faster to find an individual or service that specializes in helping clinicians interpret the qEEG report and make neurofeedback recommendations based on it.  Be extremely cautious about the service or people you work with. Many people who purchase equipment and the software still get help in interpreting reports as part of the learning process.

If you use someone to help interpret the qEEG, how does that work?
First, you need to get the EEG data recorded, which can be done in your office, or by sending the client to another office that has the equipment,  You then send the EEG files digitally via the internet . Once the files are received, they will clean up the EEG data, analyze it, and produce a report.  Reports vary widely by the individual or the service.  An e-mail version of the final report can then be sent to you in full color and/or sent as a printed “hard copy” of the report. To get a neurofeedback recommendation requires you to use someone very knowledgeable in neurofeedback and qEEG.

Is there insurance reimbursement?                                               
Two main billing codes apply: 95816 for recording the EEG, and 95957 for analysis of the EEG. The professional interpretations are billed with the same codes, adding the trailer “–26”.  Several psychologists and licensed therapists have reported insurance reimbursement success with billing code 95957, without an MD.  A therapist using an MD for billing reported high reimbursement success.  

Do qEEG’s improve client compliance?
Several clinicians report that the qEEG adds credibility and has improved client motivation and compliance – to help get started and stick with their Neurofeedback program.  They say clients often feel relief when they see the pictures – it makes their problem more real. 

If you don’t give a qEEG to everyone, who should it be recommended to?
This is a judgment call, but here are some recommendations of situations to seriously consider it for: 

• TBI/Stroke/Head injury
• Rage disorders
• Seizures
• Long difficult psychiatric/medical history with little response to many medications
• Suicidal depression
• Existing neurofeedback client who is making little or no progress within 8-15 sessions
   

 How important is the database?
There are major differences in the various normative databases that exist and each has its pros and cons.  You can choose from SKIL, NX-Link, Neuro-rep and others.  Each has it’s pros and cons.  There is no perfect database (a new one coming from Australia called Brain Resource may come close, though it's still very new in the neurofeedback world).  Ultimately, it may be more important to find a consultant and let them help you choose between approaches.  This is very difficult to sort through without experienced help.   
Are there good courses available for learning the qEEG?


Are there good courses available for learning the qEEG?
There are many courses provided for learning the qEEG. They are a bit difficult to find, not provided consistently, and you're likely to need to take several in order to really get up to speed.  We are hoping to help provide more ready access to qEEG courses - a step 1, 2 3 set of courses that are more consistently provided.  One course is really never enough.   But there are courses offered, at conferences and by some individual organizations. Because of the learning curve, taking any or all of these course may be useful, though not always cost effective. Again, it may be useful to use consulting to help identify the best fit (course, equipment, mentor) for an individual practice.    (soon, you'll click here for more information)

Are there criteria for choosing a qEEG service provider or individual knowledgeable in qEEG's?
 

• Ask questions about their knowledge and experience in both qEEG's and neurofeedback. 
• Talk to several neurofeedback users they've worked with to see how successful the interactions are.  There is no substitute for talking to users. 
• Don't pick someone because they are close.  Expertise is more valuable than proximity. 
• Consider trying them out with one or two clients to see if it's a good fit. 
• Find out how you can use their recommendations.  Look at some of their reports, discuss their approach.  Since there are different approaches/models in neurofeedback, how well do their recommendations fit your training model? How much protocol expertise/savvy do they have?  

Does a qEEG ever show a client as normal when he/she isn't normal? 
Yes, it can happen.  Clinicians with head injured or other severely dysfunctional clients sometimes receive qEEG reports that appear to be within the range of normal variation – meaning it may look “OK” when the person is clearly not OK.   But this also depends on the skill of the individual reading the report, and their ability to identify subtle problems. Like medical tests, a qEEG won't always help. But the more experienced the reader, the more likely you are to learn to identify clues.  Note - you may have 2 different people read the same qEEG report and come up with different information.  There's still both a science and art component to interpreting.     

What does “training to the Q” (qEEG) actually mean?  Is it necessary?       
In the strictest sense, it means that if your qEEG varies from the normal EEG database, you train the areas that vary from the norms until they are normal.  The problem is the qEEG doesn't actually tell you the right training strategy for targeting the problem identified. To use it, it assumes some knowledge of how to apply neurofeedback.  For example, the qEEG showed excessive low frequency at Fp2 (right pre-frontal), do you train down the low frequency, train up higher frequency, do both, or neither?  Could it respond better by training another site?  Anyone who’s done much neurofeedback knows that training FP2 by itself at faster frequencies has real potential for problems.   

How can problems recording the EEG affect qEEG reports?     
The qEEG report may have problems as a result of (1) artifact, (2) problems staying alert during the qEEG, or (3) use of medications (or over the counter remedies) which were not disclosed to the therapist.  Without a very experienced EEG reader/clinician, these problems could affect the qEEG report inappropriately.  For example, let's say someone gets sleepy while having their EEG recorded.  If that's not clearly identified (which requires both experience and careful diligence to the raw EEG), the report could show excessive slow activity when in fact, it's just that they were tired.    

The problem with statistics:  Can the same data yield different recommendations? 
A qEEG is a statistically based report.  When you compare an individual’s data against an averaged “normal” database, any variation in an individual's data that is less than 2.0 standard deviations is not considered statistically significant in traditional neurometric analysis. But when there are thousands of calculations, it's not that unusual for several of the qEEG report numbers to be high or low.  This can be a statistical anomaly.  No one number in the report - even if it's way off norms, by itself identifies the problem.   (soon, you'll click here for more information)
 
What are some other reasons neurofeedback recommendations can vary based on a qEEG?    
EXAMPLE:  Let’s say the qEEG identifies a coherence problem.  Some recommendations would include coherence training between the offending sites.  However, a contrary opinion suggests that training the primary site with unipolar training – such as training F3 with 15-18 Hz (to get it regulating itself properly) often can eliminate the coherence problem without the need to train coherence directly.  Could there be times where coherence training may be needed?  Yes.  Is there one right answer?  Probably not.

EXAMPLE.  Let’s say that C3 and C4 are lit up – they have excess 9-11 Hz activity (sometimes identified as a mu pattern).   Do you train down 9-11 at those sites, or train up faster frequency?  But the problem may in fact be with the frontal lobe, and NOT C3 and C4.  The solution could be to train frontally.  Even in the qEEG field, not many people yet know this.

Are qEEG's consistent from day to day?  Can there be a lot of variability?
The qEEG has been studied for years. Many studies document the EEG measurement to be very consistent, such that if you have seen one person’s qEEG today, and you saw the same person tested one week later, both could usually be easily identified as belonging to the same person (by an experienced EEG analyst). The reliability of the process needs to be assured by good technique, such as proper sampling of the EEG and elimination of state changes such as drowsiness or medication changes.   

How does a qEEG compare/correlate to a SPECT scan or FMRI?             
This topic probably requires a longer discussion of Amen’s work with SPECT scans and how this work compares with qEEG, but the very short answer appears to be, both can be helpful to a neurofeedback protocol recommendation.  However, a qEEG is potentially better for development of Neurofeedback protocols at this time - related to specific timing features in the recommendations.  A SPECT scan, for example, may provide better indicators on perfusion, particularly subcortically.