LENS): Theory, Background, and Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 differ- ent from those in traditional neurofeedback. The LENS, as a behavioral neurofeedback applica- tion, 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]> Web- site: <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 Evolution of LENS and Relevant Concepts The Low Energy Neurofeedback System The major implication of this paper is that (LENS) is an EEG biofeedback system used in both the physically and psychologically trau- clinical applications and research in the treat- matized brain has demonstrated vastly greater ment of central nervous system functioning. It capacity for recovery than has previously been is unique in the field of neurofeedback in that appreciated. Secondarily, the LENS appears to instead of only displaying information on a help the traumatized person achieve clearly in- computer screen to assist the patient in condi- creased performance in relatively short periods tioninghealthierbrainwavepatterns,theLENS of time, with a quite non-invasive, low technol- uses weak electromagnetic signals as a carrier ogy procedure. On the other hand, other kinds wave for the feedback to assist in reorganizing of EEG biofeedback may be just as effective as brain physiology. The following describes the the LENS under some conditions. Although no rationalefortheLENSsystem,aswellassubse- claims are being made here that the LENS is quent discoveries. Also presented are some better than any other form of treatment, it is, suggestions for future research and practical however quite different from other neuro- application of the LENS technology. feedback modalities, as well as from other Len Ochs is affiliated with Ochs Labs, Sebastopol, CA. Address correspondence to: Len Ochs, 8151 Elphick Lane, Sebastopol, CA 94596 (E-mail: lochs@earthlink. net). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS): Theory, Background, and Introduction.” Ochs, Len. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Neurotherapy (The Haworth Medical Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 10, No. 2/3, 2006, pp. 5-39; and: LENS: The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (ed: D. Corydon Hammond) The Haworth Medical Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 5-39. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]]. Available online at http://jn.haworthpress.com © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J184v10n02_02 5 6 LENS: THE LOW ENERGY NEUROFEEDBACK SYSTEM neurostimulation techniques such as audio/vi- the predominant energy of the EEG, in which sual stimulation and particularly transcranial lies the dominant frequency. The dominant fre- magnetic stimulation, where the intensities quencyis thefrequencyatthatmomentata spot used are thousands of times stronger than on the person’s head which is stronger than any LENS uses. Lastly, there appears to be no basic other frequency. With that as a hypothesis, it scienceyetrevealedtohelpunderstandthephe- seemed appropriate to suggest that a treatment nomena described here, thus creating a new approach might be to tie the stimulation fre- areaofinquiryintheneuro-behavioralsciences. quencytothedominant,orpeak,EEGfrequency. Thefollowingsectionispresentedforhistor- Since from 1 in 4,000 children and about 1 in ical purposes to outline the order and context in 20,000 adults are estimated to be photosensi- which the significant components in the devel- tive (Quirk et al., 1995), and thus vulnerable to opment of the LENS were observed including: experiencing a seizure with photic stimulation, a description of the instrumentation; the means this could occasionally present severe prob- of measuring and controlling the feedback in- lems. Photo-hypersensitivity refers to the reac- tensity; the problems and benefits observed in tivity to light that is strong enough to elicit con- the development of this system; and treatment vulsions–whether the person is epileptic or not. management problems and how they evolved, If, for instance, the person were to have a sei- particularly with regard to different popula- zure–whether from epilepsy or the stimulation tions. evoking a photohypersensitive seizure–the fre- History. During the summer of 1990, Harold quency of that seizure would become the domi- L. Russell, PhD of Galveston, Texas, tele- nantfrequency.Inotherwords,ifthestimulation phoned Len Ochs, PhD in Concord, California. frequency equaled the dominant frequency, the He asked Ochs to develop a device which pro- stimulationwouldfurtherstimulateanypre-ex- vided fixed-frequency photic stimulation. His isting seizure. Fortunately this could be dealt interest was based upon the work of Marion Di- with easily by programming the software to amond,PhD(1988)inherworkontheeffectsof prevent the software from ever being equal to environmental stimulation on cortical com- the dominant frequency. An example of how to plexity in rats. Russell (Carter & Russell, 1981, do this was to define the stimulation frequency 1984, 1993) had experimented with exposing as some percentage of the dominant frequency. school children with performance problems Itwas anticipatedthatthisstrategywouldbegin and high inter-test variability to daily, 20-min- to displace and disperse some of the energy of ute repeated cycles of 10 Hz, for one minute, any seizure activity to other non-seizure brain- then 18 Hz for a minute, for six weeks. Russell wave frequencies. Fortunately, setting the stim- used bright red flashing lights inside impro- ulation frequency to some percentage greater vised welder’s goggles. His idea was to use the than 100% of the dominant EEG might satisfy flashing lights to stimulate the brains of the those in the neurofeedback community (Lubar, school children. 1985) advocating for increasing EEG frequen- It was my impression that any simple fixed- cies for enhanced cognitive control. Further, frequency stimulation would be an inefficient using a percentage less than 100% of the domi- way to provide the desired stimulation to alter nant frequency might satisfy those advocating brainwave activity. The degree to which a per- decreasing EEG frequencies for enhancing son’s EEG (electroencephalographic activity) emotional integrity and decreasing chemical is influenced by external (e.g., photic) stimula- dependence (Peniston & Kulkosky, 1991). tion depends on many factors, including their Russell agreed to pay for the programming of dominant brainwave frequency from moment- the original software according to this concep- to-moment, and the intensity and frequency of tion.Hence,thesoftware was programmedinto the stimulus used. Although the intensity and devices that would be called electroencephal- frequency of a fixed stimulation frequency ographic entrainment feedback (EEF). could influence the EEG, another factor that The original EEF software was designed to might have bearing on entrainability of the link together the J&J I-330 EEG module 201 EEG is the size of the difference, at any mo- (and afterward the J&J I-400), and the Synetic ment, between the stimulation frequency and Systems Synergizer (Seattle, Washington), a Len Ochs 7 light-and-sound generationdevicewhich fit in- more rapidly in the replacement unit for the side an IBM-clone computer through software I-330 C2. We had to introduce a time lag be- know as BOS, a DOS-based interpreted plat- tween the occurrence of any EEG event and the form developed by William Stuart, of Bain- feedback tied to its occurrence. The critical bridge Island, Washington. As originally con- learning from this experiment was that techni- ceived, thesoftwarewas to allow theSynergizer cal precision does not necessarily lead to clini- card to set the flash frequency of the lights in- cal efficacy. The current use of the LENS em- side some welder-type goggles, and to continu- ploys extremely weak intensities of feedback ouslyresettheirspeedasthedominantEEGfre- anddoesinvolvethepatient’sownEEGdriving quency of the person’s brain changed on a thefeedback,butdoesnotinvolveanyconscious moment-to-moment basis. The software also participation or even positive intention. set and reset the frequency of binaural auditory tones coming through ear phones, in the same Differences Between the LENS way it set the light frequency. The feedback and Traditional Neurofeedback might pulsate at 105% of the dominant fre- quency during one 10-second period, then 95% The following statements reflect the current of the dominant frequency during the next, and statusoftheEEGbiofeedbackfieldatthistime. alternate between the two conditions. The soft- ware never let the flash frequency equal the 1. The field of EEG biofeedback or neuro- dominant frequency. feedback