Lens

The Low Energy Neurofeedback System

Corydon D. Hammond, Corydon D. Hammond, Corydon Hammond

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781138136021
• eBook ISBN: 9781136773990
• Topic: Médecine
• Subtopic: Prestation de soins de santé

A comprehensive look at this revolutionary method of neurofeedback

LENS: The Low Energy Neurofeedback System examines the research, development, and clinical applications of the revolutionary LENS method of brain wave feedback. This practical book provides a foundation for clinicians to learn about this groundbreaking medical advancement, which has been used with a wide range of conditions. The book illustrates the results of the use of LENS in more than 100 cases, as well as applications with brain-based problems in animals.

LENS: The Low Energy Neurofeedback System is a comprehensive overview of the history and evolution of clinical use of this innovative approach. One of the unique features of LENS is that it can not only be used with adults and children, but it can also be used with small children and more seriously disabled individuals who lack the impulse control, attention, or stamina to concentrate for the more extended periods of time required in traditional neurofeedback. The book presents an outcome study on 100 cases where LENS was successfully applied to a wide range of clinical symptoms, as well as case studies on the use of LENS with neurodevelopmental and learning disabilities.

LENS: The Low Energy Neurofeedback System details the application of LENS in the clinical treatment of:

• head injuries
  
• ADD/ADHD
  
• autism
  
• learning disabilities
  
• fibromyalgia
  
• anger and explosiveness
  
• depression
  
• developmental disorders
  
• anxiety
  
• insomnia
  
• epilepsy
  
• addictions
  
• and much more

LENS: The Low Energy Neurofeedback System is an essential professional resource for psychologists, social workers, licensed counselors, and biofeedback professionals.

The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS): Theory, Background, and Introduction

Len Ochs, PhD

SUMMARY. This article presents the concepts, operations, and history of the Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS) approach as they are now known and as it has evolved over the past 16 years. The conceptual bases and practical operating principles as described are quite different from those in traditional neurofeedback. The LENS, as a behavioral neurofeedback application, often provides the same qualitative outcome as that in traditional neurofeedback, with reduced treatment time. doi:10.1300/J184v10n02_02 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Neurofeedback, EEG biofeedback, biofeedback, neurotherapy, LENS, low energy neurofeedback system, EEG, brain stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS) is an EEG biofeedback system used in clinical applications and research in the treatment of central nervous system functioning. It is unique in the field of neurofeedback in that instead of only displaying information on a computer screen to assist the patient in conditioning healthier brainwave patterns, the LENS uses weak electromagnetic signals as a carrier wave for the feedback to assist in reorganizing brain physiology. The following describes the rationale for the LENS system, as well as subsequent discoveries. Also presented are some suggestions for future research and practical application of the LENS technology.

Evolution of LENS and Relevant Concepts

The major implication of this paper is that both the physically and psychologically traumatized brain has demonstrated vastly greater capacity for recovery than has previously been appreciated. Secondarily, the LENS appears to help the traumatized person achieve clearly increased performance in relatively short periods of time, with a quite non-invasive, low technology procedure. On the other hand, other kinds of EEG biofeedback may be just as effective as the LENS under some conditions. Although no claims are being made here that the LENS is better than any other form of treatment, it is, however quite different from other neurofeedback modalities, as well as from other neurostimulation techniques such as audio/visual stimulation and particularly transcranial magnetic stimulation, where the intensities used are thousands of times stronger than LENS uses. Lastly, there appears to be no basic science yet revealed to help understand the phenomena described here, thus creating a new area of inquiry in the neuro-behavioral sciences.

The following section is presented for historical purposes to outline the order and context in which the significant components in the development of the LENS were observed including: a description of the instrumentation; the means of measuring and controlling the feedback intensity; the problems and benefits observed in the development of this system; and treatment management problems and how they evolved, particularly with regard to different populations.

History. During the summer of 1990, Harold L. Russell, PhD of Galveston, Texas, telphoned Len Ochs, PhD in Concord, California. He asked Ochs to develop a device which provided fixed-frequency photic stimulation. His interest was based upon the work of Marion Diamond, PhD (1988) in her work on the effects of environmental stimulation on cortical complexity in rats. Russell (Carter & Russell, 1981, 1984, 1993) had experimented with exposing school children with performance problems and high inter-test variability to daily, 20-minute repeated cycles of 10 Hz, for one minute, then 18 Hz for a minute, for six weeks. Russell used bright red flashing lights inside improvised welder’s goggles. His idea was to use the flashing lights to stimulate the brains of the school children.

It was my impression that any simple fixedfrequency stimulation would be an inefficient way to provide the desired stimulation to alter brainwave activity. The degree to which a person’s EEG (electroencephalographic activity) is influenced by external (e.g., photic) stimulation depends on many factors, including their dominant brainwave frequency from momentto-moment, and the intensity and frequency of the stimulus used. Although the intensity and frequency of a fixed stimulation frequency could influence the EEG, another factor that might have bearing on entrainability of the EEG is the size of the difference, at any moment, between the stimulation frequency and the predominant energy of the EEG, in which lies the dominant frequency. The dominant frequency is the frequency at that moment at a spot on the person’s head which is stronger than any other frequency. With that as a hypothesis, it seemed appropriate to suggest that a treatment approach might be to tie the stimulation frequency to the dominant, or peak, EEG frequency.

Since from 1 in 4,000 children and about 1 in 20,000 adults are estimated to be photosensitive (Quirk et al., 1995), and thus vulnerable to experiencing a seizure with photic stimulation, this could occasionally present severe problems. Photo-hypersensitivity refers to the reactivity to light that is strong enough to elicit convulsions–whether the person is epileptic or not. If, for instance, the person were to have a seizure–whether from epilepsy or the stimulation evoking a photohypersensitive seizure–the frequency of that seizure would become the dominant frequency. In other words, if the stimulation frequency equaled the dominant frequency, the stimulation would further stimulate any pre-existing seizure. Fortunately this could be dealt with easily by programming the software to prevent the software from ever being equal to the dominant frequency. An example of how to do this was to define the stimulation frequency as some percentage of the dominant frequency. It was anticipated that this strategy would begin to displace and disperse some of the energy of any seizure activity to other non-seizure brainwave frequencies. Fortunately, setting the stimulation frequency to some percentage greater than 100% of the dominant EEG might satisfy those in the neurofeedback community (Lubar, 1985) advocating for increasing EEG frequencies for enhanced cognitive control. Further, using a percentage less than 100% of the dominant frequency might satisfy those advocating decreasing EEG frequencies for enhancing emotional integrity and decreasing chemical dependence (Peniston & Kulkosky, 1991). Russell agreed to pay for the programming of the original software according to this conception. Hence, the software was programmed into devices that would be called electroencephalographic entrainment feedback (EEF). The original EEF software was designed to link together the J&J I-330 EEG module 201 (and afterward the J&J I-400), and the Synetic Systems Synergizer (Seattle, Washington), a light-and-sound generation device which fit inside an IBM-clone computer through software know as BOS, a DOS-based interpreted platform developed by William Stuart, of Bainbridge Island, Washington. As originally conceived, the software was to allow the Synergizer card to set the flash frequency of the lights inside some welder-type goggles, and to continuously reset their speed as the dominant EEG frequency of the person’s brain changed on a moment-to-moment basis. The software also set and reset the frequency of binaural auditory tones coming through ear phones, in the same way it set the light frequency. The feedback might pulsate at 105% of the dominant frequency during one 10-second period, then 95% of the dominant frequency during the next, and alternate between the two conditions. The software never let the flash frequency equal the dominant frequency.

The initial system, funded by Russell’s AVS group, involved many features that have now been discarded, while the current software now includes many features that were not yet conceived. Discarded features central to the original conception were: the necessary use of visible light feedback, the use of sound feedback, the use of fixed time limits for changing offsets, the use of the same size offsets from the dominant frequency, the necessary use of offsets, the necessary use of alternating offsets, and the necessary use of offsets of arbitrary sizes.

New features include the generation of the feedback signal from within the EEG (the electroencephalograph) device itself, as well as the ability to control the feedback, using the J&J I-330 C2 family of EEGs. The use of the J&J I-330 C2 permitted the portable use of the system from a suitable desktop or notebook computer.

It is important to note that there were many technical inadequacies of the first generation EEF system. Yet the results from this technically “inadequate” system appeared to be better than any other treatment for closed-head trauma. Interestingly, the results were not quite as good when the more technically sophisticated second generation system was introduced. This led those involved to try to duplicate some of the inadequacies of the original system. The major required change was to retard the feedback, which was produced much more rapidly in the replacement unit for the I-330 C2. We had to introduce a time lag between the occurrence of any EEG event and the feedback tied to its occurrence. The critical learning from this experiment was that technical precision does not necessarily lead to clinical efficacy. The current use of the LENS employs extremely weak intensities of feedback and does involve the patient’s own EEG driving the feedback, but does not involve any conscious participation or even positive intention.

Differences Between the LENS and Traditional Neurofeedback

The following statements reflect the current status of the EEG biofeedback field at this time.

1. The field of EEG biofeedback or neurofeedback is relatively new. There are relatively few studies with chronic conditions, controlled or otherwise, that offer understandings of what will work, under what conditions, to what extent, and with what time, physical, and monetary costs.

2. Each of the various kinds of EEG biofeedback involves its own set of rituals, with relatively little analysis of what alternatives might be used.

3. None of the forms of EEG biofeedback appear to have ever cured a progressive condition such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, or dementia. However, they probably have increased functioning and quality of life for many people in the earliest stages of any of these diseases, perhaps for at least several years and when applied properly.

4. Each form of EEG biofeedback seems to complement and enhance the effects of all of the others, as well as other forms of therapy.

5. Based on interviews with former patients of nearly each form of EEG biofeedback, each approach seems roughly comparable in effects, no matter how inexpensive or how expensive the treatment was, with some specific differences from treatment-to-treatment to be defined with later research.

6. Nearly all forms of EEG biofeedback work with easy cases and become more cumbersome and delicate (with satisfactory outcomes) with complex cases, but appear nevertheless at their clinical efficacy limit with the current technologies because of technical problems of managing coherence and other issues.

7. Finally, while each form of EEG biofeedback may appear scientific, the application of each is probably more of a physiologically-based art than science at this stage of the game. Even so, all of the forms of EEG biofeedback seem to offer provocative and interesting hope for many who have been declared to be at the end of their options for improvement.

The LENS differs from traditional EEG biofeedback in that the LENS does not require the person to understand the meaning of, or laboriously attend for a half hour to the feedback in order to influence their brainwave activity and benefit from the treatment. No attentional, discrimination, prolonged stillness, or learning demands are placed on the individual. In addition, the LENS uses a somewhat different conceptual approach to selection of which EEG sites to train. Traditional neurofeedback uses protocols based on either symptoms or on abnormalities found in QEEG brain maps, with both approaches often utilizing only a limited number of electrode sites for training. In contrast, the LENS treatment is also guided by a topographic EEG map, but one which prioritizes electrode site abnormalities based on both EEG amplitude and EEG variability. Unlike other neurofeedback approaches, LENS treatment is then administered at all 19 (or more) electrode sites. Treatment consists of the delivery of a tiny electromagnetic field carrying the feedback signal down the electrode wires for only one second at each of the chosen electrode sites during every session. This input stimulation varies from moment-to-moment, updated 16 times per second based on the dominant EEG frequency changes. Generally between one and seven of the ordinary electrode sites are treated during each session.

Finally, central to the application of LENS treatment is the concept of patient reactivity/sensitivity and the response of the patient’s nervous system. We adapt the duration of stimulation, session frequency, and degree to which the stimulus is offset from the dominant EEG frequency to the patient’s reactivity, and closely related to their vitality and degree of symptom suppression.

The LENS may be used as a tool to use in a treatment context with other EEG biofeedback or neurofeedback modalities or as a single solution to several problems. The LENS is being studied as a potential treatment of adults and children with CNS-mediated disorders in the USA, Australia, Canada, Germany and Mexico. It has been shown to produce rapid resolution of difficult cognitive, mood, anxiety, clarity, energy, physical movement and pain problems when compared with more traditional forms of psychotherapy or medication treatment. No efficacy comparisons are offered in relation to other forms of EEG biofeedback, or neurofeedback, since no comparative studies have been undertaken.

It is important to note that the LENS does not require the patient’s attention, focus, orienting toward feedback, home practice of self-regulation techniques, or, indeed, any conscious participation in any self-regulatory activity (except showing up and not removing the electrodes from the head). The LENS appears to operate on the basis of the biophysical properties of the feedback signals themselves, on the tissues of the brain and related structures such as the vascular system. In addition to not requiring attention, focus, and attention toward feedback, the LENS approach, tolerates gross movement and artif...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Editor
• Preface
• Introduction
• The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS): Theory, Background, and Introduction
• Treatment of Fibromyalgia Syndrome Using Low-Intensity Neurofeedback with the Flexyx Neurotherapy System: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
• Comment on the Treatment of Fibromyalgia Syndrome Using Low-Intensity Neurofeedback with the Flexyx Neurotherapy System: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial, or How to Go Crazy Over Nearly Nothing
• Reflections on FMS Treatment, Research, and Neurotherapy: Cautionary Tales
• The LENS (Low Energy Neurofeedback System): A Clinical Outcomes Study on One Hundred Patients at Stone Mountain Center, New York
• Effective Use of LENS Unit as an Adjunct to Cognitive Neuro-Developmental Training
• The LENS Neurofeedback with Animals
• Index