How QEEG, TOVA, and symptom data get matched to published research
Every report starts with three inputs from your client and ends with citations from the published literature. Here is exactly what happens in between, and what it never does.
Slow-wave sleep & cortical gating
Working memory & attentional control
Posterior dominant calm alertness
Active cognitive processing & focus
Every correlation starts from the same three sources
Nothing is inferred from QEEG alone. A finding only becomes part of a report when it is grounded in the actual pattern across all three.
NeuroGuide QEEG Export
Z-scored and raw interhemispheric asymmetry at F7-F8, F3-F4, and C3-C4, across delta, theta, and alpha: read directly from the .tdt export.
Objective Attention Data
Commission errors, omission errors, and response-time variability: an objective, task-based measure alongside the QEEG.
Clinical Presentation
11 symptom domains, scored 0 to 4 by the referring practitioner: what is actually presenting clinically, not just what the instruments show.
Matched against a curated library, then checked against current research
A hand-curated library of literature, reviewed and tagged to specific QEEG, TOVA, and symptom patterns, is checked first. Live queries to published research databases then supplement it, never replacing it, for anything current the curated library does not cover yet.
Reviewed and tagged in advance, spanning neuroscience, psychological, and lifestyle literature: not just EEG studies.
Primary source for current clinical and biomedical literature.
Supplementary source catching psychology and allied-health research PubMed indexes less completely.
A worked example, start to finish
Illustrative only: a constructed example to show the process, not a real case or a real client's data.
QEEG finding: Elevated frontal theta/beta ratio
Z-scored theta/beta ratio above threshold at frontal sites.
Checklist finding: Inattention domain scored high
Symptom checklist shows elevated inattention-domain responses from the referring practitioner.
Literature match: Cross-checked against the theta/beta ratio literature
The knowledge base and live search surface the substantial body of research on frontal theta/beta ratio as a QEEG correlate of attentional presentations (e.g. Arns, Conners, & Kraemer 2013, a meta-analysis of a decade of theta/beta ratio research in ADHD).
What the report says: A correlation, not a diagnosis
“The elevated frontal theta/beta ratio observed is consistent with patterns reported in the attention literature. This finding, alongside the checklist's inattention-domain result, may be relevant to the referring practitioner's clinical picture.”
The report stops there, as it does not diagnose ADHD or recommend a treatment.
Three things that are true of every report, without exception
Every citation traces to a real source
PubMed ID, DOI, or a curated library entry, never a summary invented to fit the finding.
Findings, not diagnoses
QEEG and TOVA cannot themselves produce a diagnosis. The report states what the research associates with the pattern and leaves the clinical decision to you.
AI-generated, and we say so
The report is generated by correlating your data against the research without individual human review before delivery. AI-generated content can be wrong: check the findings before relying on them.
See it applied to your own client's data
Free to sign up. You only pay when a report is actually produced.