How important is technique? Supporting ‘Tailored-Individualized-Input’

Kenneth V Vinton, DC, is a 1989 graduate of Palmer College of Chiropractic with research honors. He is a seminar instructor and consultant, and maintains a private practice in Grove City, Pa. Over the past 15 years Dr. Vinton has worked extensively with neurofeedback and biofeedback instrumentation while documenting the psychophysiological effects of adjusting.

Commentary

The graph demonstrates that adjusting instruments can elicit substantial brainwave responses. The graph also illustrates that different methods of application, i.e., variable forms of afferent input, can play a significant role in the outcome. Different technique approaches apply different qualities of mechanoreceptor input, which in turn, elicit different brain wave responses.

All manual and instrument-assisted adjustments “talk to the brain.” Different patients require different amounts of input (e.g., time and force combinations) in order to produce effective, long-lasting changes.

One of the most important skills a practitioner can develop is the ability to tailor the intensity of applied forces to meet the needs of individual patients, i.e., TailoredIndividualized Input/ NeuralAfferentThresholdOlogy. Adjusting instruments enable a practitioner to produce various types of mechanoreceptor input that can be difficult or impossible to produce by hands only.

Brain wave activity

One adjustment can be a band-aid; another adjustment has the potential to be life changing. Take for example, the graph below which displays the brain wave activity of a subject who was adjusted several times over a 25-minute time period.

• ‘ab’ = the subject rested.

• At ‘b’, the subject was adjusted by a practitioner using an ArthroStim adjusting instrument. The subject was adjusted a second time near the end of the ‘bc’
time period.

Both adjustments produced transitory changes in brain wave activity. (Note: transitory brainwave responses to the second adjustment continued into the ‘cd’
time period.)

• ‘c d’
= the subject rested.

• At ‘d’, the patient was adjusted a third time by using the ArthroStim instrument and a different technique approach. This adjustment produced substantial, sustained

Changes in brain wave activity, i.e., a reduction in beta activity and a rise in deeper, healing, alpha and theta activity. The subject was adjusted using the ArthroStim instrument by IMPAC Inc. The BioIntegrator instrument was used to monitor EEG changes.

The graph displays the percentage of alpha (A), beta (B), and theta (T) brain wave activity produced by the subject’s right (R) and left (L) hemispheres.
This research was provided by IMPAC Inc. 8005698624 www.impacinc.net