The Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS)

LENS is an EEG biofeedback system being 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 tiny electromagnetic signals as a carrier wave for the feedback to assist in reorganizing brainwave activity. 

The LENS works by continuously monitoring EEG activity and then uses these readings to determine the frequency of very small electromagnetic fields that are “offset” several cycles per second (hertz) faster than the patient’s dominant brainwave.  This feedback stimulus input is then delivered down electrode wires at generally 7 or fewer electrode sites in the course of a treatment session, for only one second per site.  This input is much weaker than what the brain receives from holding a cell phone to one’s ear.

How can non-perceivable feedback to the brain that is of such minimal magnitude still be influential?  While the mechanism of how this happens remains to be determined, it is clear from both the documented effects of these feedback signals on the amplitudes and variability of brainwaves, that (1) this feedback is being processed by the brain, and (2) that the impact of these signals, when used correctly, can improve people’s functioning in their own experience and the experience of others who observe them. 

While these effects are clear to the professionals who use the LENS, it remains the job for controlled, double-blind, randomized studies to demonstrate these effects to others.  It also remains for basic research to describe the mechanisms that allow these effects to take place, as well as the variables which minimize and maximize the effects. 

Improved functioning has been observed for those patients receiving the LENS treatment who had plateaued in their recovery from motor paralysis and CNS-mediated cognitive and mood impairment after mechanical and psychological trauma.  Reported improvements have persisted since data collection was begun in 1994 (and even earlier with antecedent systems).

The more the patient’s history has been complicated by lifelong problems preceded by an intergenerational history of problems in parents and grandparents, and when the patient’s problems have been numerous and complex, it is much more complicated to judge the efficacy of this approach; thus, the “success rate” may drop precipitously.