






























 

 

3 
 

APP| Published By AEIRC| https://doi.org/10.29052/2412-3188.v7.i1.2020.3-5 

Ann. psychophysiol. 
ISSN 2412-3188 (Online) | 2410-1354 (Print) 

Editorial 

Problems with the continued proliferation of 
unsubstantiated psychophysiological techniques 
being promulgated and sold for clinical use   
Jerry R. DeVore & Richard A. Sherman            

Saybrook University, California-United States 

 

 

 
This journal is dedicated to publishing studies 
and reviews which assist our readers to 
recognize psychophysiological techniques, 
assessments, and interventions likely to be 
useful in a wide range of situations. Sadly, this 
includes informing readers when 
psychophysiological techniques are being 
promulgated and sold without sufficient 
evidence to support their claims of efficacy. 
This is crucially important because it is all too 
easy for most of us to mistake sales pitches 
supposedly supported by poor and non-
existent research, testimonials, and the like for 
actual evidence of efficacy. Thus, readers can’t 
easily determine whether the technique in 
question has sufficient support to warrant its 
use. The journal will begin publishing thorough 
reviews of such techniques in the next few 
issues beginning with a review of low current 
and audiovisual stimulation techniques. An 
example of a technique which may well be 
effective but is being promulgated with claims 
far beyond the research demonstrating its 
efficacy is the LENS system currently being 
sold to treat a wide variety of clinical problems. 
 
The LENS (Low-Energy Neurofeedback 
System) system is advertised as a 
neurofeedback system in which 
electroencephalographic (EEG) brain waves are 
assessed for the dominant frequency and then a 
low intensity (.0006 microamp) transcranial 
electric current (TACS) is administered for a 

few seconds.  This brief, very low-intensity 
signal is said to reorganize cortical functioning 
and foster adaptive change for a wide variety of 
clinical conditions.  
 
 The current TACS system was preceded by a 
system developed by the same person named 
the Flexyx Neurotherapy System (FNS) that 
came on the market in the early 1990s.  That 
system also assessed EEG waves for a few 
seconds, noted the dominant frequency, and 
generated a photic flicker at an offset to the 
dominant frequency in order to facilitate 
cortical dysregulation and reintegration.  It was 
evaluated through several case studies 
(Shoenberger, et al, 2001) and one longer case 
series of fibromyalgia cases (Mueller, H.H., 
Donaldson, Stuart, 2001) which reported 
favorable results but there was no placebo 
control. Shortly after a randomized control / 
experimental group design was conducted 
(Kravitz, et al, 2001) with negative results, the 
system became unavailable. 
 
 Its successor is the LENS system which uses 
TACS. It began being broadly advertised in the 
early 2000s.  It is supposed to rapidly help 
people with a variety of clinical conditions. 
According to the developer, he originally didn’t 
realize that the earlier system (Flexyx) was 
sending a tiny electrical signal into the brain 
until he had engineers check the system as the 
results were far quicker than anticipated.  



 

   

4 
 

APP| Published By AEIRC| Volume 7 Issue 1  

 

ISSN 2412-3188 (Online) | 2410-1354 (Print) 

 

It is this signal which he ascribes to be the 
means that produces effects so the Flexyx was 
abandoned and the LENS was developed.  
 
Note that this is the traditional change when 
an unsubstantiated system is tested and 
found useless. You can read about hundreds 
of similar devices (e.g. the use of 
thermography for detection of breast cancer). 
As soon as the system is proven useless, the 
proponents make a minor change in the 
system and return to the market with 
specious claims unsupported by any 
controlled studies. Also, note that the 
proponents of such devices usually claim that 
appropriate studies are unnecessary as “you 
can see the changes” or that there is no 
adequate placebo for the device. Usually, but 
not always, the proponents encourage the 
use of the device by unlicensed or 
inappropriately licensed “practitioners” to 
avoid interference by the government. (An 
inappropriately licensed practitioner is one 
whose license does not include the use of 
such devices within the practitioner’s scope 
of practice.) They also frequently ascribe the 
failure of the medical community to accept 
the device as being due to undue influence by 
various jealous powers. It is rare for such 
devices to have FDA (US Food and Drug 
Administration) labels indicating safety and 
efficacy. The few which do have them for 
some attribute of the device unrelated to the 
use promulgated for them (such as being 
used as transcutaneous electrical stimulation 
(TENS) units). 
 
Readers can watch a 2011 discussion and 
demonstration of the photic system. A second 
video made in 2018  discusses case examples, 
the reasons why placebos are unnecessary as 
changes can observed happening, 
emphasizes patient testimonials, and briefly 
describes skin temperature monitoring at the 
millisecond level.  
 
Data supporting the use of the LENS is 
extremely limited.  The total amount of 
“research” on LENS appears to consist of (1) 
a book with uncontrolled case reports 
(Larsen, Stephen, 2006),  The Healing Power 

of Neurofeedback: The Revolutionary LENS 
Technique for Restoring Optimal Brain 
Function, (2) the 2018 YouTube video noted 
above in which case reports are described, (3) 
Cripe, Curtis T, (2006) reported favorable 
outcomes on 4 individuals described as 
having neurodevelopmental trauma (note 
that this is not a specific diagnosis), (4) 
Hammond, Corydon, (2007) reported 
successful treatment in one case of anosmia 
resulting from TBI, (5) Hammond, Corydon 
(2010) reported on 2 cases on anger 
management, and (6) one case series of 100 
participants (Larsen, Stephen, Harrington, 
Kristen and Hicks, Susan, 2006) with no 
comparable control group that reports 
favorable results following a series of LENS 
treatments.   
 
There does not appear to be any published 
literature documenting any demonstrable 
effect, health-related or otherwise of a 1-2 
second exposure of low-intensity 
(.0006microamps) TACS on cortical 
functioning. There are a number of entirely 
unsupported speculative hypotheses 
intended to explain the effect but there is no 
evidence that any of those hypotheses have 
been empirically examined.  
 
It is crucial to remember that devices 
promulgated without placebo-controlled 
studies having sufficient subjects to 
demonstrate adequate power and sufficiently 
long follow-ups to show that initial effects 
last at least a few months are among those 
which usually disappear when adequately 
tested. There are thousands of these devices 
and techniques scattered across recent 
practice which disappear when adequately 
tested or simply hang on indefinitely. Due to 
the lack of adequate research, there is no way 
to tell whether LENS will join this sad group 
or go on to shine when appropriate studies 
are performed. 
 

References 
1. Cripe CT. Effective use of LENS unit as 

an adjunct to cognitive neuro-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0uX_kSfXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz08GIgY_tA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz08GIgY_tA


 

   

5 
 

APP| Published By AEIRC| Volume 7 Issue 1  

 

ISSN 2412-3188 (Online) | 2410-1354 (Print) 

 

developmental training. J. Neurother. 
2006; 10(2-3):79-87. 

2. Hammond DC. Can LENS 
neurofeedback treat anosmia resulting 
from a head injury?. Journal of 
Neurotherapy. 2007 Jun 20;11(1):57-62. 

3. Hammond DC. Lens neurofeedback 
treatment of anger: Preliminary reports. 
J. Neurother. 2010; 14(2):162-169. 

4. Kravitz HM, Esty ML, Katz RS, Fawcett J. 
Treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome 
using low-intensity neurofeedback with 
the Flexyx Neurotherapy System: A 
randomized controlled clinical trial. J. 
Neurother. 2006;10(2-3):41-58. 

5. Larsen S, Harrington K, Hicks S. The 
LENS (low energy neurofeedback 
system): A clinical outcomes study on 
one hundred patients at Stone Mountain 
Center, New York. J. Neurother. 2006; 
10(2-3):69-78. 

6. Mueller HH, Donaldson CS, Nelson DV, 
Layman M. Treatment of fibromyalgia 
incorporating EEG‐driven stimulation: a 
clinical outcomes study. J. Clin. Psychol. 
2001; 57(7):933-952. 

7. Schoenberger NE, Shiflett SC, Esty ML, 
Ochs L, Matheis RJ. Flexyx neurotherapy 
system in the treatment of traumatic 
brain injury: An initial evaluation. The 
JHRHE. 2001; 16(3):260-274. 

8. Ochs L. Youtube. EEG driven light and 
sound stimulation at the 
Neurotechnology Forum (Seattle 1992). 
2011. Available at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h
Y0uX_kSfXo 

9. Ochs L. Youtube. Mind Mending With 
Low Energy Neuro Feedback System. 
November 2018. Available at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F
z08GIgY_tA 

 
 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0uX_kSfXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0uX_kSfXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz08GIgY_tA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz08GIgY_tA

