We need especially to look at many technical aspects of the EEG recording, data analysis, and feedback processes. I will volunteer to be on a committee to do this. I think that we need to get started as soon as possible. The training course that is to begin in March is to have a section on instrumentation. If we are going to train practitioners up to SAN standards, we need to know what SAN standards are. I agree with Ralph that things have to be transparent and with full integrity. We must be careful not to taint the scientists and practitioners in the organisation with the image that we have any financial relationships with manufacturers. It is a question of establishing standards. We have had some volunteers. Are there others? Can someone from the board please tell us how to become constituted as a committee? Then we can begin contacting manufacturers and vendors to inform them of our mission and to invite them to work with us. ann -----Original Message----- From: esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ralph Warnke Sent: 15 October 2004 10:58 To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [esnr] AW: Re: Standardised Equipment Dear all, I'm always surprised to see how many serious clinicians and researchers are willing to buy and use equipment that is not fully developed, tested or certified... This baffles me no end! Why are biofeedback or neurofeedback clinicians willing to use beta equipment or software that is labelled as "not for clinical purposes" for their treatments? To be slightly provocative: Should we start worrying about surgeons buying their scalpels at garage sales or at a Sellers two-for-one deal? My point is: RELIABILITY of Equipment with really good and fast support by a strong and capable dealer network, training courses accredited by national and/or international societies should also be a major factor in the "general expectation" towards systems and their manufacturers. We all know that in the daily use of equipment all is fine - until we stumble accross a possible hard- or software problem or something that we just need for our work that is not there but could be. Maybe we can come up with a list of expectations from the USER end like the aspect stated above. If you use a "user perspective" independent from any given equipment, we should be able to come up with parameters that REALLY count in product evaluation and then even provide a rated list open to the public that makes the possible recommandation process from SAN T R A N S P A R E N T to others to protect us from any complaints we would be favoring particular systems for reasons other than objective parameters. To get us started: - Durability of equipment - Eperience of manufacturer in the field (in years) - Reliability of system (Hardware) - Reliability of system (Software) - Easy to use (user friendliness) - Broad scale of adjustability (system adaptable to specific uses) - Size of equipment - portable equipment - CE/EMV standards achieved / not achieved - compatibility with other existing systems / software solutions / data bases etc. - ... Best regards Mit herzlichen Grüßen aus der Wedemark (Ralph Warnke) MediTECH Electronic GmbH Langer Acker 7 D-30900 Wedemark ------------------------------------------------------ Telefon: 05130 - 97778-0 Telefax: 05130 - 97778-22 ------------------------------------------------------ www.meditech.de www.brainboy.de www.brainfeedback.de ------------------------------------------------------ ralph.warnke@xxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------ -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Lesley Parkinson Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Oktober 2004 23:36 An: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: [esnr] Re: Standardised Equipment Good idea, Marco. Lesley >From: Marco Congedo <loretabiofeedback@xxxxxxxxx> >Reply-To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [esnr] Re: Standardised Equipment >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:38:28 -0700 (PDT) > >I would reccomend...to create a committee for investigation of hardware >and >software equipments. This committee should come out with recommendations >based on quality/price ratio criteria and willingness of the company to >support SAN. To minimize simpathy, commercial interests and such nuisance >factors, the committee could be fairly large and heterogeneous. > >Marco > >Foksfam@xxxxxxx wrote: >Marco - In theory I very much like the idea of standardised equipment. >What would you recommend..? > >Melissa > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!