LENS Neurofeedback vs. Traditional Neurofeedback

LENS is unique in why it works, how quickly it works, and how effectively it works. "LENS is unlike any treatment, including traditional forms of neurofeedback, that I've seen in 25 years of medical practice." David Dubin, MD www.thedubincli...

[@martinlutherkingjr.5582]

Should an adult patient with ADD but no hyperactivity or impulsivity take their stimulant medication during LENS treatment & neurofeedback if they have no problem sitting still for the entire session…just their attention mentally drifts? If you’re training the brain to work properly while on medication then when the patient isn’t taking the medication it would seem the lasting effects of training would be less effective?

[@markwhittaker3548]

I'll be in-touch : )

[@ollobrains1234]

traditiional neurofeedback can be enhanced by adding 10% of gamma 40hz uptraining and taking oxiracetam, fishoil and gingko ( oxi for superplasitisiticy) fishoil for omegas and gingko for blood flow all important after neurofeedback

[@angelielohim6147]

What’s oxi please? Where do you get that. N what’s 10% gamma 40hz how do you do that.

[@martinlutherkingjr.5582]

Should it be taken after or before the neurofeedback session? What about stimulant medication?

[@MariadeJesus-dt4ql]

Traditional neurofeedback is the best training, because it trains the brainwaves that are dysregulated and this creates change on how the brain functioning. Now the brain is working properly. But lens neurofeedback only activates the brain cells that are frozen and this creates less stress on the brain but is not focusing on the main problem of the brain, in the specific areas in which the brain waves are not working properly. If you have to chose between the 2, chose traditional neurofeedback training.

[@tomandjennacali1879]

I totally disagree please do not sway people from getting LENS. Are you a practitioner??

[@tomandjennacali1879]

Ilir Cami I would do LENS! It’s amazing for TBI and you will see results months quicker!!

[@ItalianaCaliforniana]

This is misinformation and presumably a misguided attempt to promote traditional neurofeedback. LENS is an EEG based technology (similar to traditional neurofeedback, in that sense) that allows your brain the data it needs to self-heal and self-correct. It's a passive protocol and generally proving to be far more effective than the more traditional (fully clinician/training reliant) attempts toward the same goals. If traditional neurofeedback is the brut force, human instrumentation of this process, than LENS is the medical version and more up to date.

[@luke9822]

A signal is sent back to the brain. Great. We get lots of signals sent to our brain all day long. How does this signal "train the brain"? And what is it being trained to do? Would be great if you provide more details on that and mentioned some peer reviewed sources we could check out.

[@justsit1]

The signal itself is first of all very weak--several hundred times weaker than a cell phone. It is imperceptible, too weak to be aware of. The signal goes back to the brain using the following formula: dominant frequency + offset. The signal roughly mirrors what the brain itself is doing (dominant frequency), and, since the dominant frequency of the brain is constantly shifting, the signal going back to the brain it is constantly changing. The signal does not "train the brain", that is what standard neurofeedback does. We don't know all the physiologic process taking place in direct neurofeedback, but most immediately and most prominently effect is on the autonomic nervous system, one of the two main branches of the peripheral nervous system. The sympathetic branch ("fight or flight") diminishes while the parasympathetic branch ("rest, relax and recover") is enhanced. That seems to be the basis of secondary effects that can follow.. This is a simplified discussion, but direct neurofeedback is ultimately not neurofeedback. It is a micro stimulation but uses neurofeedback equipment to generate that micro stimulation..

[@tomandjennacali1879]

Trust me, it’s the best thing I’ve ever done.

[@chriscros13]

@@tomandjennacali1879 how was it

[@ItalianaCaliforniana]

The signal is the electrical map of your brain itself. It shows the brain a data mirror. We absolutely do not receive any similar signals of that content "all day long," let alone ever in our lives. LENS is extremely effective, I'd try it if you're curious. Relatedly, and in terms of research, many of us (patients) are hoping for further studies that can help promote and popularize an extremely important new technology. Fund LENS!

[@martinlutherkingjr.5582]

@@ItalianaCaliforniana LENS is extremely effective for what conditions? It doesn’t seem like it will treat pancreatic cancer.

[@labyrinthpassenger1883]

Definitely choose traditional neurofeedback - it actually makes sense as a procedure. The brain is doing something particular that’s not beneficial for the patient. A practitioner does their best to identify what is happening in the brain that might be causing it. They set thing up so the brain receives a reward every time it moves in the direction that is desired, even if the patient isn’t conscious of it. Other methods marketed by various labels (such as lens, direct, dynamic etc) seem to operate on the principle that if anything is wrong with the brain at all, simply feeding back to it an opposing signal will rectify things.

[@ItalianaCaliforniana]

I entirely disagree and recommend you try a full course of LENS before claiming that. It's far more advanced and less reliant on human training to make the right adjustments. It literally allows the brain to heal itself and the opportunity to self optimize. Completely different treatments; traditional neurofeedback is fine but just significantly less up to date and generally less effective and more reliant on the "work" or efforts of the patient. Important to have both sides represented because it can be dangerous to dismiss a lifesaving technology for no reason other than fear of the unknown.