Psychology Today: LENS (low energy Neurofeedback system) —Placebo or otherwise?

[cosmicaug]

Legit or not?

From https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-transhumanist-philosopher/201709/i-tried-direct-neurofeedback-and-the-results-surprised-me

Zoltan Istvan
The Transhumanist Philosopher
I Tried Direct Neurofeedback and the Results Surprised Me
Interview with Direct Neurofeedback Specialist Grant Rudolph
Posted Sep 17, 2017


Transhumanism—the movement of using science and technology to improve the human being—covers many different fields of research. There are exoskeleton suits to help the disabled; there are stem cell treatments to cure disease; there are robots and AI to perform human chores. The field is wide open and booming as humanity uses more and more tech in its world.

It’s not that often I get to participate directly in these radical technologies, but I did so recently when Grant Rudolph, Clinical Director at Echo Rock Neurotherapy in Mill Valley, California invited me to try his Direct Neurofeedback techniques. Via his computer and EEG wire hookups, Mr. Rudolph echoed my brainwave information back into my head at an imperceptible level. I did two sessions of Direct Neurofeedback.

[...]

I see no absolute reason for this to be implausible but I still find myself reticent, based on the Psychology Today article, to accept that this works because, as I see it, this article offers no evidence of this beyond the author's anecdotal impression of having the technique applied to him. While there exists mechanistic reasons to think that direct electrical brain stimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)^WP or like transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)^WP may not actually have a direct effect on the brain, as long as it can affect skin receptors (even if below a perceptual threshold), one can still easily accept that a plausible mechanism of action exists. This is, of course, trivially true in the case of a placebo based mechanism of action but I would not consider this, in any real sense, as an example of this technique working (that is, it is exactly what I'd like to be able to rule out or in).

I'd be interested in knowing what peer reviewed, properly double blinded placebo controlled studies show about this technique but I'm not sure I even know how to find them (though I did find one for what appears to be a related technique using what, if I understood it correctly, seems to be some sort of subperceptual visual feedback of some sort). For that matter, I would like to see a better, more detailed explanation of how this technique works (which might not even be possible if it happens to be proprietary).

 

[Elaedith]

Yes, there are peer-reviewed studies supporting the effectiveness of neurofeedback. However, many studies have weakness such as failure to control for some types of placebo or general effects.

To find evidence:

Go to scholar.google.com, type neurofeedback - refine search by keywords such as 'placebo controlled'. Or sign up to researchgate.net.

Here is a recent review on neurofeedback for ADHD:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d5a/697caf7b43d2a7423ebc308dd31c843f6a24.pdf

 

[MuDPhuD]

Yes, there are peer-reviewed studies supporting the effectiveness of neurofeedback. However, many studies have weakness such as failure to control for some types of placebo or general effects.

To find evidence:

Go to scholar.google.com, type neurofeedback - refine search by keywords such as 'placebo controlled'. Or sign up to researchgate.net.

Here is a recent review on neurofeedback for ADHD:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d5a/697caf7b43d2a7423ebc308dd31c843f6a24.pdf

Yes "neurofeedback" is a real thing, and you can learn to control aspects of your eeg, and this may have some therapeutic effects, in ADHD, for example.

This is not what LENS is though.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Legit or not?

From https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-transhumanist-philosopher/201709/i-tried-direct-neurofeedback-and-the-results-surprised-me



I see no absolute reason for this to be implausible but I still find myself reticent, based on the Psychology Today article, to accept that this works because, as I see it, this article offers no evidence of this beyond the author's anecdotal impression of having the technique applied to him. While there exists mechanistic reasons to think that direct electrical brain stimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)^WP or like transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)^WP may not actually have a direct effect on the brain, as long as it can affect skin receptors (even if below a perceptual threshold), one can still easily accept that a plausible mechanism of action exists. This is, of course, trivially true in the case of a placebo based mechanism of action but I would not consider this, in any real sense, as an example of this technique working (that is, it is exactly what I'd like to be able to rule out or in).

I'd be interested in knowing what peer reviewed, properly double blinded placebo controlled studies show about this technique but I'm not sure I even know how to find them (though I did find one for what appears to be a related technique using what, if I understood it correctly, seems to be some sort of subperceptual visual feedback of some sort). For that matter, I would like to see a better, more detailed explanation of how this technique works (which might not even be possible if it happens to be proprietary).

Your reticence is well founded.

The best place to start is the website of Echo Rock Neurotherapy, given in the link in your post.
From their home page:
"Insight (LENS) Neurofeedback
LENS is scientifically demonstrated to be effective for a variety of different conditions and disorders that are related to brain function."

So lets follow the link "learn more"! Scrolling down to...
"Neurofeedback has been extensively researched and has been demonstrated remarkable efficacy for a variety of different conditions. Please view our Research page for more information."
The Research Paper

This is a retrospective analysis, it is not randomized, placebo controlled, or blinded. Patients self select (are willing to pay for unproven treatments I presume), enter the program, and show improvements in their symptoms. Without proper controls this is as good as worthless.

Add to that the method (from the Introduction paper):
"there was a unique element
with the system–an exceptionally tinyelectromagnetic pulse was being delivered
down the electrode wires to head of the patients.
The timing of the electromagnetic pulses was
determined by the way in which the lights were
timed to flash in relationship to the dominant
brainwave pattern of the patient" and
"... a very weak electromagnetic signal was influencing the brain.."
And this "...He candidly
admits how much is still not known about
LENS treatment, how it achieves its effects,
and the fact that LENS treatment does not
succeed with all patients."

So the theory is that through a few eeg recording wires they are sending a tiny current back to the patient's head, while they are recording the eeg, and that tiny current is the feedback.

Then the LENS proponents link to successful studies of standard neurofeedback used in a variety of conditions. The variable success of Neurofeedback methods for various conditions is not at all relevant to the possible usefulness of LENS neurofeedback, because they are not the same thing at all.

In short LENS used at Echo Rock Therapy has not been shown to have any effect whatsoever, has no possible mechanism of action, and is admitted by its proponents to have inconsistent results in the uncontrolled studies they have posted. They have a misleading website promoting their method as "scientifically proven", and I presume are charging desperate people for their unproven therapy.
They are the worst type of charlatans.
That's my opinion, of course. (highlights mine, for emphasis)