[esnr] Re: AW: Re: Standardised Equipment

  • From: "Frick, Ann" <a.frick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:36:02 +0100

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.


-----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

-----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.

>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

>software equipments. This committee should come out with
>based on quality/price ratio criteria and willingness of the company to

>support SAN. To minimize simpathy, commercial interests and such
>factors, the committee could be fairly large and heterogeneous.
>Foksfam@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Marco - In theory I very much like the idea of standardised equipment.
>What would you recommend..?
>Do you Yahoo!?
>vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

Other related posts: