Facilitation in Dyslexia Neurofeedback Therapy Using Local Influence of Combined DC and AC Extremely Low Frequency Exposure: A pilot study

Abstract

ABSTRACT
There is a consensus in bio-electromagnetic studies that combined parallel weak static and alternating magnetic fields causes a rapid change in the ionic current of brain neurons. Also, the neuroscientists try to change the brain activities by Neurofeedback therapy (NFT). This study investigated the effects of a weak local DC and sinusoidal extremely low frequency magnetic field (L-DC-S-ELF-MF) in dyslexia. Six children with dyslexia aged between 7 and 10 years were attended in 6 NFT sessions. Each session consisted of 4 statuses, PRE, DURING, NFT, and POST. In the DURING status, the coil was located on the all subject’s head, while 3 of the subjects who were assigned to the experimental group were really exposed to local DC–50μT and 45Hz–400μT sinusoidal ELF-MF at P3 for 10 minutes. The duty cycle of sinusoidal exposure was 40% (2-second exposure and 3-second pause). Then in the NFT status, they reinforced to simultaneously inhibit delta (1-4Hz), theta (4-8Hz), and high beta (19-30Hz) activity, at the F3 site in a video game for 30 minutes. Two groups have improvement in score of Integrated Visual-Auditory (IVA) test, although more changes were occurred in the experimental group. The results indicate that theta rhythms in the exposed group decreased more significant in comparison to the sham (P<0.05). It is suggested that an increased performance to IVA in children with dyslexia was because of the magnetic field effect, although more investigation is needed for conclusive results.

Full text

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 80 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
Advances in Bioresearch
Adv.Biores.,Vol7(5)September2016:80‐89
©2016SocietyofEducation,India
PrintISSN0976‐4585;OnlineISSN2277‐1573 
Journal’sURL:http://www.soeagra.com/abr.html
CODEN:ABRDC3
ICVValue8.21[2014]
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Facilitation in Dyslexia Neurofeedback Therapy Using Local
Influence of Combined DC and AC Extremely Low Frequency
Exposure: A pilot study

Yasaman Zandi Mehran1*, Reihaneh FirooziKhojastefar2, Nazanin Zandi Mehran3, Masoumeh
Karimi4, Reza Rostami5, Mohammad Firoozabadi6
1BiomedicalEngineering,DepartmentofElectronic,CollegeofElectricalEngineering,Yadegar‐e‐Imam
Khomeini(RAH)Branch,IslamicAzadUniversity,Tehran,Iran
HeadofInternationalScieneTechCarenCompany,NeuroscienceandLaserProductionCompany,Tehran,
Iran.
2RoozbehHospital,TehranUniversityofMedicalScience,AtiehNeuroscienceCentre,Tehran,Iran.
Researcher,InternationalScieneTechCarenCompany,NeuroscienceandLaserProductionCompany,
Tehran,Iran.
3BiomedicalEngineering,DepartmentofBiomedicalEngineering,AmirkabirUniversityofTechnology,
Tehran,Iran.
4DepartmentofPsychologyandEducationalSciences,UniversityofTehran,Tehran,Iran.
5Psychiatrist,DepartmentofPsychologyandEducationalSciences,UniversityofTehran,Tehran,Iran&
HeadofAtiehNeuroscienceCentre,Tehran,Iran.r
6FullProfessorofBiomedicalEngineering,MedicalPhysicsDepartment,TarbiatModaresUniversity,
Tehran,Iran.
Corresponding author: YasamanZandiMehran.zandi@srbiau.ac.ir

ABSTRACT
There is a consensus in bio-electromagnetic studies that combined parallel weak static and alternating magnetic fields
causes a rapid change in the ionic current of brain neurons. Also, the neuroscientists try to change the brain activities by
Neurofeedback therapy (NFT). This study investigated the effects of a weak local DC and sinusoidal extremely low
frequency magnetic field (L-DC-S-ELF-MF) in dyslexia. Six children with dyslexia aged between 7 and 10 years were
attended in 6 NFT sessions. Each session consisted of 4 statuses, PRE, DURING, NFT, and POST. In the DURING status, the
coil was located on the all subject’s head, while 3 of the subjects who were assigned to the experimental group were
really exposed to local DC–50μT and 45Hz–400μT sinusoidal ELF-MF at P3 for 10 minutes. The duty cycle of sinusoidal
exposure was 40% (2-second exposure and 3-second pause). Then in the NFT status, they reinforced to simultaneously
inhibit delta (1-4Hz), theta (4-8Hz), and high beta (19-30Hz) activity, at the F3 site in a video game for 30 minutes. Two
groups have improvement in score of Integrated Visual-Auditory (IVA) test, although more changes were occurred in the
experimental group. The results indicate that theta rhythms in the exposed group decreased more significant in
comparison to the sham (P<0.05). It is suggested that an increased performance to IVA in children with dyslexia was
because of the magnetic field effect, although more investigation is needed for conclusive results.
Keywords: Brain, Local Sinusoidal ELF, dyslexia, Neurofeedback.

Received22/05/2016Accepted09/09/2016©2016SocietyofEducation,India
How to cite this article:
Y Zandi Mehran, R Firoozi Khojastefar, N Z Mehran, M Karimi, R Rostami, M Firoozabadi .Facilitation in Dyslexia
NeurofeedbackTherapyUsingLocal Influence of Combined DCand ACExtremelyLowFrequencyExposure:Apilot
study.Adv.Biores.Vol7[5]September2016:80‐89. DOI:10.15515/abr.0976‐4585.7.5.8089

INTRODUCTION
Dyslexiaischaracterizedbydifficultieswithreading,spellingandwriting,oranycombinationthereof[1].
Thiscondition affects 5‐17%of children.Intensiveeducational programs haveproducedpositiveresults
inattentionalandreadingabilitiesindyslexicchildren;however,readingskillsstillremainedlaggeduntil
adulthood[2].Datasuggeststhat therearedifferencesbetweenthe brainsofchildrenwithdyslexiaand
Advances
in
Bioresearch

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 81 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
normativecontrols[3].Somestudiessuggestfrontalcortexasaninvolvedregionofbraininthisdisorder.
Magneticresonanceimaginghasalsoshownthatfrontalgyrusactivitydecreasesinthesechildren[4].In
addition,itappearsthatposteriortemporalcortex(PTC),superiorandinferiorregionsarealsoimportant
in reading skill. Injuries and lesions to PTC region have been shown to produce acquired dyslexia.
Neuroimaging data has shown deficits in activity at the PTC which increases when reading difficulties
subside[5].
Neurofeedback has shown promising results in the treatment of dyslexic symptoms [6‐8]. Some
researchers have tried to apply Neurofeedback as an effective method in modification of brain wave
abnormalities in dyslexic children [9]. Some studies have reported positive effects of NFT on attention
and working memory which are essential components of reading skill [10]. NFT is comprised of two
aspectsof active(traditional NFT) and passive [11]. Inactive NFT, some externalfactors canaffect the
training procedure, i.e. volition and client characteristics role such as intelligence quotient (IQ). In
dyslexia, this dependency is more distinguishable [12‐17]. Some developments in active NFT occurred
whichiscalledLowEnergyNeurofeedbackSystem(LENS)[18,19].However,inthecaseofLENS,volition
hasnoroleratherthantheactiveone.Inotherword,theLENSisasapassiveNFTandsodoesnotrequire
anyconsciouseffortonthepartoftheclient,andusedlowenergyelectromagneticwave(i.e.radio,light)
asafeedback,sendingtothesubjectsandmeasuresthereturnedwaves.ThisdevelopedmethodofNFTis
basedonthedeliveryofelectromagneticwavecarryingthefeedbacksignaldowntheelectrodewire.The
stimulusinthismethodisbasedondominantEEGfrequency[18,20].
Furthermore,increasingofbrainstimulationmethodsandapproachesinaffectingdifferentbrainregions
eventuallyrose.Magnetic [11,21‐38], electromagnetic[39‐43],and electrical[1,44‐46] stimulatorsare
included in this kind of stimulation m ethods; such as, TMS (Transcranial  Magnetic Stimulation), rTMS
(repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation), TDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation), ECT
(electro‐cumulative therapy), etc. Between thesemethods, there aremany studies onthe physiological
andneurologicaleffectofverylowmagneticfieldatTrange[47,48].Inrecentyears,thereisanincrease
instudiesthat indicateevidencesonpositive effect of TMS andrTMSonseveralcognitivedomains[49].
Thewiderangeofmagnetic brainstimulationto affect thebrainindicates the abilityofthisstimulating
method.
Another of these methods uses an extremely low frequency mag netic field (ELF MF) to perform brain
stimulation [11, 21, 26, 28, 48, 50‐53]. Data on weak magnetic ELF and its effects on human’s brain
activities such as attention, perception and cognitive process have yielded contradictory evidences
stemmingmainlyfrom the magneticfieldmechanism and differentprotocols.This datasuggeststhatat
particularfrequencies,ELFMFcausesreinforcementofthesamefrequencyastheexposurefield’sone,in
brain signals [23, 54‐56]. Although, the re is no consensus on the mechanism of ELF effects, there are
someevidencethatELFexposurehasimportanteffectsonhumanbeing,brainandbrainactivity[21,26,
28,50,52,57,58].
Magnetic local exposure induces w eak electrical current that stimulates neurons beneath the exposed 
region,andevenatthe otherregions[11,21,59]. Also, thereisacrucialsurprisingphenomenonthata
low frequency AC magnetic field caused changes in calcium concentration in nervous tissue in the
presence of a simultaneously acting DC magnetic field [25, 60‐69]. These experiments investigated the
combined action of weak (below 0.05mT) magn etic fields on ion channels behavior in the ‘‘open field
test’’revealedprominentinfluenceofthecyclotronfrequenciesforcalciumorsodiumandotherions,and
cellto detectdepression or an increase in motor activity.They investigated the effects of the DC fields
combined with an ELF AC magnetic field with respect to domination of a peak at the cyclotron
frequencies,toitshalfwidth,andtoarisingfrequencyandamplitudewindows.TheELF‐MFeffectsdonot
requireattention,concentrationandattemptofpersonforitsownbrainwavemodification.
Since,NFTheavilydependsonindividualcharacteristicsuchasintelligence,inthisresearch;weusednew
NFT which called Neuro-LSELF [11, 52, 53]. Therefore, this new NFT may decrease the number of
educational sessions, or may increase the education speed. In the present study, we hypothesize that
readingability is improvedbyreinforcementoffrontal gyrus regionbyDCandAC45Hzlocal sinusoidal
extremelylowfrequencymagneticfield.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Subjects
Sixchildren(3femaleand3male)agedbetween 7 to 10years(meanageof8.33years)wereattendin
the study properly and ethically informed about ELF exposure and experiment. None of them had
previouslytaken part in studies involvingMF exposure. Allparents’ subjects were asked torefrain the
Mehran et al

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 82 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
childrenfrom drinkingtea 2hours before attending the experiment. Theethics committeeof the Atieh
NeuroscienceCentreapprovedtheprotocolandallparentsprovidedinformedconsentofELF.
Procedure
Each subject underwent to this study i n 4 statuses in either the exposure or the sham group. Table 1
showstheprocedureforeachsubjectineachsession.
Table 1. The procedure for each subject in each session
Each session procedure
PRE
DURING
NFT
POST
Time
(minutes) 2 10 30 2
status
EEG
record
atF3
Coilwas
located
atP3
NFT(reinforcedtosimultaneouslyinhibittheta
(4‐8Hz),
delta(1‐4Hz),andhighbeta(19‐30Hz)activity,atthe
F3site),EEGrecordatF3
EEG
record
atF3

At the first session, they were examin edi n the IQ (Stanford Binnet), IVA (IVA+PLUS), and 19 Channel
QEEGassessmentsystem(Mitsar‐EEG‐10/70‐201,SN:150015911)byAtiehNeuroscienceCentre.
Themean ofIQ ofthe subjectsof theexposed groupwas 90,while wasnear tothe shamgroup which
was91.ThemeanofverbalIQofexposedgroupwas92,andthemeanoftheperformanceIQwas88.The
meanofverbalIQoftheshamgroupwas91,whilemeanoftheperformanceIQwas90.TheIVAconsists
of4subscales;visualattention(VA),auditoryattention(AA),visualresponsecontrol(VRC),andauditory
responsecontrol(ARC)whicheachofthesubscalesvariesfrom90to109.Thesubjectswerediagnosed
accordingtoDSM‐IVinterviewindyslexiaandthe QEEG assessment(increasedslowactivity(Deltaand
Theta)inthefrontalandrighttemporalregionsofthebrain).Then,theirreadingabilitieswereassessed
byAtiehStandardisedquestionnairethatconsistof40scorewith18±6(mean±SD).Thisquestionnaireis
similartoDyslexiaNAMA[70]andhasbeenmodifiedbyAtiehpanelexpert.TheIVAtestwasexaminedat
thefirstandattheendoftreatmentprocedure(thesixthsession).
Experimental Setup
TheEEGrecorderdevice(ProComp2,ThoughtTechnologyLtd,madeinCanada)has2specificchannels
forEEGrecording.The10/20IS(InternationalSystem)ofelectrode placement wasusedandtheactual
placementhadacommonreferenceelectrodeplacedattheleftearlobeandwasgroundedtotherightear
lobeusingearclips.AnactiveelectrodeofEEGsetwasplacedatF3forNFT.
Wehave used theavailable magnetic field exposure systemconsisted of acircular coil[11, 52,53, 59].
Themagneticfieldexposure systemconsistedofa circularcoil.Alsoa circularmagnetwasfixedon the
circularcoil.Themagnetic field exposuresystemwascapableoftheoutput signalONandOFF.Thecoil
characteristicsmeasured by1630DIGITAL LCRMETER,EQ model (L=53.75±0.125mH). Consideringthe
coil properties and low frequency range of signal generator (0.5 to 100Hz), inductance effects wasn’t
ambiguous.Teslameter(TRIAXIALELFMAGNETICFIELDMETER,TES‐1394,serialnumber:040704120,
U.S.Pat.No.Des.446,135)at2.5cm(1.5cmformaximumskullthicknessand1cmformagnetthickness)
belowthe Plexiglas ring at the axis showedthe intensity of ELF‐MF as50T for DC magneticfield and
400Trmsforsinusoidalmagnetic field.Thesinusoidallocal ELF exposed toexposedgroupas2seconds
ONand3secondsOFF(DutyCycle=40%).
Statistical Analysis
Asdescribed,EEGdatawassavedandcollectedatthreeconditionsofeachsubjectineachsession:before
exposure(labelled as PRE),after exposure (labelledas POST) andduring NFT(labelledas DURING) in
both groups (sham and exposed).Two conditions were considered for exposure: sham and L‐DC‐S‐ELF
MF.Astothetrialstate,threelevelsPRE,DURINGandPOSTwereconsideredforeachEEGrhythms;for
what concerns delta (1‐4 Hz), theta (4‐8 Hz), and high beta (19‐30 Hz) rhythms. The Kolmogorov‐
SmirnovtestshowedthatsomeEEGrhythmswerenotnormallydistributed,soWilcoxonsignedranktest
acrossthestatusesofPRE,DURING,andPOSTwereadopted.Mann‐WhitneyU testwasusedtocompare
the2 groups’the EEG rhythms.Also repeatedmeasure analysiswas usedto investigateeffectiveness of
theNeuro-LSELF inchanging the EEG rhythmsinbothgroups.All analyseswererunwiththe statistical
IBM SPSS Statistics ver.21 software. The mean amplitude of amplified EEG rhythms was subjected to
statisticalwithasignificancelevelsetat0.05.

RESULTS
TocomparethedifferenceofthetatobetaEEGrhythms,frequencyanalysiswasused.MeanandStandard
Deviation(mean(SD))presentedaswellforsignificantchange.
Mehran et al

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016
Usingbetween‐
groupcomparisonstherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthegroupsatpre
forage andIQ. The QEEGbetween group assessments wasperformed byNeuroGuide Deluxe Software
(Neurostat2.3.8version)andComprehensiveQEEGAnalysis(
VT) between two groups before attending the procedure. The results show any significant difference
betweentwogroupsbeforeattendingtheprocedure,andconfirmthedyslexiatoo.

Fig. 1. Themeanofamplitude
forthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroups.(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)


BetweengroupscomparisonwasperformedtoinvestigatetheEEGrhythms.ThedeltaofPRE
MFexposedgroupwas2.87(1.08)which in comparisonto Shamthatwas2.90(0.47)wasnotdifferent
significantly (P>0.05). The delta of POST in LSELF
comparisontoShamthatwas2.91(0.62)wasnotdiffer
exposed group was 1.99 (1.14) which in comparison to Sham that was 2.73 (1.02) was different
significantly (P=0.015). The high beta of PRE in LSELF
comparisontoS
hamthat was2.67(0.89)wasnotdifferentsignificantly(P>0.05).Thehighbetaof POST
inLSELF‐
MFexposedgroupwas2.55 (1.36) which incomparisonto Shamthat was2.70 (1.00) wasnot
differentsignificantly,too (P>0.05). But,thehighbeta of DURING
(0.64)whichincomparisontoShamthatwas2.20(1.06)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.003).Thetheta
ofPREin LSELF‐
MFexposed group was4.87 (1.25) whichin comparisontoSham thatwas 6.34 (2.62)
wasdifferentsign
ificantly(P=0.005).Also,thethetaofPOSTinLSELF
whichincomparisontoShamthatwas5.60(1.07)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.013),andthethetaof
DURINGinLSELF‐
MFexposedgroupwas2.52(1.50)whichincompar
wasdifferent significantly,too (P=0.041).Therefore, itseems that,comparison ofdelta, theta,and high
betaEEGrhythms recordedfromthe exposedandthesham groupsshowssignificant inthethetain all
three statuses
. On the other hand, the mean of th e theta rhythm of the sham and the  exposed group,
during the NFT, was significant different. The within group comparison was investigated too. As the
resultsshow, the thetadecreases duringNFT incomparison ofPREand P
Although, this decrement was occurred in both groups, but there was a more decrease in the exposed
group. In the experiment group, the  delta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and
83 | P a g e ©2016
Society of Education, India
groupcomparisonstherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthegroupsatpre
forage andIQ. The QEEGbetween group assessments wasperformed byNeuroGuide Deluxe Software
(Neurostat2.3.8version)andComprehensiveQEEGAnalysis(QEEGReportwriting Service,Brattleboro,
VT) between two groups before attending the procedure. The results show any significant difference
betweentwogroupsbeforeattendingtheprocedure,andconfirmthedyslexiatoo.

forthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroups.(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)
BetweengroupscomparisonwasperformedtoinvestigatetheEEGrhythms.ThedeltaofPRE
MFexposedgroupwas2.87(1.08)which in comparisonto Shamthatwas2.90(0.47)wasnotdifferent
significantly (P>0.05). The delta of POST in LSELF
‐
MF exposed group was 2.72 (0.62) which in
comparisontoShamthatwas2.91(0.62)wasnotdifferentsignificantly,thedeltaofDURINGinLSELF
exposed group was 1.99 (1.14) which in comparison to Sham that was 2.73 (1.02) was different
significantly (P=0.015). The high beta of PRE in LSELF
‐
MF exposed group was 2.46 (1.46) which in
hamthat was2.67(0.89)wasnotdifferentsignificantly(P>0.05).Thehighbetaof POST
MFexposedgroupwas2.55 (1.36) which incomparisonto Shamthat was2.70 (1.00) wasnot
differentsignificantly,too (P>0.05). But,thehighbeta of DURING
inLSELF‐
MFexposedgroupwas1.13
(0.64)whichincomparisontoShamthatwas2.20(1.06)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.003).Thetheta
MFexposed group was4.87 (1.25) whichin comparisontoSham thatwas 6.34 (2.62)
ificantly(P=0.005).Also,thethetaofPOSTinLSELF
‐
MFexposedgroupwas5.00(1.77)
whichincomparisontoShamthatwas5.60(1.07)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.013),andthethetaof
MFexposedgroupwas2.52(1.50)whichincomparisontoShamthatwas3.16(1.03)
wasdifferent significantly,too (P=0.041).Therefore, itseems that,comparison ofdelta, theta,and high
betaEEGrhythms recordedfromthe exposedandthesham groupsshowssignificant inthethetain all
. On the other hand, the mean of th e theta rhythm of the sham and the  exposed group,
during the NFT, was significant different. The within group comparison was investigated too. As the
resultsshow, the thetadecreases duringNFT incomparison ofPREand POSTstates inboth of groups.
Although, this decrement was occurred in both groups, but there was a more decrease in the exposed
group. In the experiment group, the  delta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and
Mehran et al
Society of Education, India
groupcomparisonstherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthegroupsatpre
‐testing
forage andIQ. The QEEGbetween group assessments wasperformed byNeuroGuide Deluxe Software
QEEGReportwritingService,Brattleboro,
VT) between two groups before attending the procedure. The results show any significant difference

forthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroups.(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)
BetweengroupscomparisonwasperformedtoinvestigatetheEEGrhythms.ThedeltaofPRE
inLSELF‐
MFexposedgroupwas2.87(1.08)which in comparisonto Shamthatwas2.90(0.47)wasnotdifferent
MF exposed group was 2.72 (0.62) which in
entsignificantly,thedeltaofDURINGinLSELF
‐MF
exposed group was 1.99 (1.14) which in comparison to Sham that was 2.73 (1.02) was different
MF exposed group was 2.46 (1.46) which in
hamthat was2.67(0.89)wasnotdifferentsignificantly(P>0.05).Thehighbetaof POST
MFexposedgroupwas2.55 (1.36) which incomparisonto Shamthat was2.70 (1.00) wasnot
MFexposedgroupwas1.13
(0.64)whichincomparisontoShamthatwas2.20(1.06)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.003).Thetheta
MFexposed group was4.87 (1.25) whichin comparisontoSham thatwas 6.34 (2.62)
MFexposedgroupwas5.00(1.77)
whichincomparisontoShamthatwas5.60(1.07)wasdifferentsignificantly(P=0.013),andthethetaof
isontoShamthatwas3.16(1.03)
wasdifferent significantly,too (P=0.041).Therefore, itseems that,comparison ofdelta, theta,and high
betaEEGrhythms recordedfromthe exposedandthesham groupsshowssignificant inthethetain all
. On the other hand, the mean of th e theta rhythm of the sham and the  exposed group,
during the NFT, was significant different. The within group comparison was investigated too. As the
OSTstates in both of groups.
Although, this decrement was occurred in both groups, but there was a more decrease in the exposed
group. In the experiment group, the  delta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016
DURING statuses (P=0.015), an
d between the DURING and the POST statuses too (P=0.047). In the
experimentgroup,thethetacomparisonshowssignificantchangebetweenthePREandDURINGstatuses
(P=0.002),andbetweentheDURINGandthePOSTstatuses too (P=0.003). Inthe experimentgr
high beta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and DURING statuses (P=0.003), and
betweentheDURINGandthe POSTstatusestoo(P<0.001). Therefore,thisresultsshowin both groups,
thethreeEEG rhythmswas changedbetweenthe PRE
POST.Theseresultsmaybe occurred because oftheNFTprocedure.Therewasnosignificantdifference
betweenthePREandPOSTstatusesinbothofgroups.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequency
relativ
etotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroupscollapsedacross
thethreestatesareshownin
Error! Reference source not found.
not found..

Fig.
2.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)forthreestatuses..(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)


The mean of theta, delta and high beta for six sessions in the DURING status in each group was
significantlydifferentfromthePREandthePOSTstatuses.ItmeansthatbothmethodologyofNFT may
resultindesiredEEGvariations,but theresultsshowmore
Neuro-LSELF-MF
method which were investigated in this paper. The mean amplitude of the training
frequencies relative to the inhibitory frequencies rhythms for each of the three states (PRE, DURING,
POST),collapse
dacrossthesixtrainingsessionsare showninFig.3.Theresultsconfirmedthe previous
discuss.Thetrendofmeanamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesfor
eachoftwogroupswasshown,EEGrhythmswereanalysedwit
trialstate,threelevelsPRE,DURINGandPOSTwereconsideredforeachEEGrhythms;forwhatconcerns
delta;theta;highbeta.SignificantdifferencesappearedinDURINGofthetaband(P<0.05).

84 | P a g e ©2016
Society of Education, India
d between the DURING and the POST statuses too (P=0.047). In the
experimentgroup,thethetacomparisonshowssignificantchangebetweenthePREandDURINGstatuses
(P=0.002),andbetweentheDURINGandthePOSTstatuses too (P=0.003). Inthe experimentgr
high beta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and DURING statuses (P=0.003), and
betweentheDURINGandthe POSTstatusestoo(P<0.001). Therefore,thisresultsshowin both groups,
thethreeEEG rhythmswas changedbetweenthe PRE

andDURING, and also between theDURING and
POST.Theseresultsmaybe occurred because oftheNFTprocedure.Therewasnosignificantdifference
betweenthePREandPOSTstatusesinbothofgroups.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequency
etotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroupscollapsedacross
Error! Reference source not found.
and
Error! Reference

2.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)forthreestatuses..(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)
The mean of theta, delta and high beta for six sessions in the DURING status in each group was
significantlydifferentfromthePREandthePOSTstatuses.ItmeansthatbothmethodologyofNFT may
resultindesiredEEGvariations,but theresultsshowmore

decrementindescribedEEG rhythms inthe
method which were investigated in this paper. The mean amplitude of the training
frequencies relative to the inhibitory frequencies rhythms for each of the three states (PRE, DURING,
dacrossthesixtrainingsessionsare showninFig.3.Theresultsconfirmedthe previous
discuss.Thetrendofmeanamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesfor
eachoftwogroupswasshown,EEGrhythmswereanalysedwit
harepeated‐
measureanalysis.Astothe
trialstate,threelevelsPRE,DURINGandPOSTwereconsideredforeachEEGrhythms;forwhatconcerns
delta;theta;highbeta.SignificantdifferencesappearedinDURINGofthetaband(P<0.05).
Mehran et al
Society of Education, India
d between the DURING and the POST statuses too (P=0.047). In the
experimentgroup,thethetacomparisonshowssignificantchangebetweenthePREandDURINGstatuses
(P=0.002),andbetweentheDURINGandthePOSTstatuses too (P=0.003). Inthe experimentgr
oup,the
high beta comparison shows significant change between the PRE and DURING statuses (P=0.003), and
betweentheDURINGandthe POSTstatusestoo(P<0.001). Therefore,thisresultsshowin both groups,
andDURING, and also between theDURING and
POST.Theseresultsmaybe occurred because oftheNFTprocedure.Therewasnosignificantdifference
betweenthePREandPOSTstatusesinbothofgroups.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequency
etotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,theta,andhighbeta)foreachoftwogroupscollapsedacross
Error! Reference
source

2.Themeanofamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequencies(delta,
theta,andhighbeta)forthreestatuses..(*0.01<p<0.05,**0.001<p<0.01,***p<0.001)
The mean of theta, delta and high beta for six sessions in the DURING status in each group was
significantlydifferentfromthePREandthePOSTstatuses.ItmeansthatbothmethodologyofNFT may
decrementindescribedEEG rhythms inthe
method which were investigated in this paper. The mean amplitude of the training
frequencies relative to the inhibitory frequencies rhythms for each of the three states (PRE, DURING,
dacrossthesixtrainingsessionsare showninFig.3.Theresultsconfirmedthe previous
discuss.Thetrendofmeanamplitudeforthetrainingfrequencyrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesfor
measureanalysis.Astothe
trialstate,threelevelsPRE,DURINGandPOSTwereconsideredforeachEEGrhythms;forwhatconcerns
delta;theta;highbeta.SignificantdifferencesappearedinDURINGofthetaband(P<0.05).


ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016
Fig.3.Themeanamplitudeofthetrainingfrequenciesrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesrhythmsfor
eachofthethreestates(PRE,DURING,POST),collapsedacrossthesixtrainingsessions.


Error! Reference source not found.
andtheexperimentalgroups.

Table 2
. The VA, AA, VRC, and ARC of three subjects of the sham and the experimental groups.
Aver age Domain: 
90 t o 1 09
Experimental Group

1
st
subject
Stat us
PRE
POST
A-Re spo nse
Cont rol104
108
V-Re spo ns e
Cont rol @@
A-At ten tion
64
103
V-At ten ti on
@

@
@:invalid

Theresult of thePOST status ofthe reading abilityby AtiehStandardised
improvement. According to the discussed mean and the standard deviation (18±6), the 1
improved1SD,the2nd
subjectimproved2SD,andthe3
theEEGrhythmsresultsth
ataremorediscussedinfuture.

DISCUSSION
Thisstudyinvestigated theeffects of aweak
field (L‐DC‐S‐ELF‐
MF) in dyslexia
According
tothementionedstandardizedform,meanandthestandarddeviation(18±6),the1
theexposedgroupimproved1SD,the2
of the exposed group improved 1 SD. Moreover, in the ex
changes; in the 1st
subject, all subscales, VA, AA, VRC and ARC improved significantly. AA and VRC
subscaleschangedsubstantiallyinthe2
AAa
ndVRCincreasedmoderately,however,ARCchangedalittle.TheLSELF
evidenceincontrastofNFTlearningasindexedbyincreasedinclinicalassessments.IncontrastthePRE
andPOSTfailedtosamesignificantchangesasanyind
inthisstudy.Furthermore,theDURINGstateexhibitedeffectivechangesalongtheLSELF
decrease of the desired EEG rhythms and self
improve
daccuracyintwogroupsboth,butmoreeffectivelyinexposedgroup.Astheresultsindicate,may
85 | P a g e ©2016
Society of Education, India
Fig.3.Themeanamplitudeofthetrainingfrequenciesrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesrhythmsfor
eachofthethreestates(PRE,DURING,POST),collapsedacrossthesixtrainingsessions.
Error! Reference source not found.

showstheVA,AA,VRC,andARCofthreesubjectsofthesham
. The VA, AA, VRC, and ARC of three subjects of the sham and the experimental groups.
Experimental Group
Sham Group

2
nd
subject
3
rd
subject
1
st
subject
2
nd
subject
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
108
 97 115 102 106 100 103 99
@ 96 @99 @@ @
103
73
90
65
101
77
100
83
@
91
@

93
@

@
@
Theresult of thePOST status ofthe reading abilityby AtiehStandardised

questionnaireshows relative
improvement. According to the discussed mean and the standard deviation (18±6), the 1
subjectimproved2SD,andthe3
rd
subjectimproved1SD.Theseresultsconfirm
ataremorediscussedinfuture.

Thisstudyinvestigated theeffects of aweak
localDCand sinusoidal
extremelylow frequencymagnetic
MF) in dyslexia. Our study demonstrated that subjects’ reading ability improved;
tothementionedstandardizedform,meanandthestandarddeviation(18±6),the1
theexposedgroupimproved1SD,the2
nd
subjectoftheexposedgroupimproved2SD,andthe3
of the exposed group improved 1 SD. Moreover, in the exposed group, IVA results revealed significant
subject, all subscales, VA, AA, VRC and ARC improved significantly. AA and VRC
subscaleschangedsubstantiallyinthe2
nd
subject,butVAandARCdidnotchange.Inthe3
ndVRCincreasedmoderately,however,ARCchangedalittle.TheLSELF
‐MF‐
NFTgroupshowedclear
evidenceincontrastofNFTlearningasindexedbyincreasedinclinicalassessments.IncontrastthePRE
andPOSTfailedtosamesignificantchangesasanyindicationoftwomethodsNFTlearningasdescribed
inthisstudy.Furthermore,theDURINGstateexhibitedeffectivechangesalongtheLSELF
decrease of the desired EEG rhythms and self
‐
assessments test, however, all participants showed
daccuracyintwogroupsboth,butmoreeffectivelyinexposedgroup.Astheresultsindicate,may
Mehran et al
Society of Education, India

Fig.3.Themeanamplitudeofthetrainingfrequenciesrelativetotheinhibitoryfrequenciesrhythmsfor
eachofthethreestates(PRE,DURING,POST),collapsedacrossthesixtrainingsessions.
showstheVA,AA,VRC,andARCofthreesubjectsofthesham
. The VA, AA, VRC, and ARC of three subjects of the sham and the experimental groups.
Sham Group
subject
3
rd
subject
POST
PRE
POST
118 100 110
98 @98
88
65
103
92
@

91
questionnaireshows relative
improvement. According to the discussed mean and the standard deviation (18±6), the 1
st subject
subjectimproved1SD.Theseresultsconfirm
extremelylow frequencymagnetic
. Our study demonstrated that subjects’ reading ability improved;
tothementionedstandardizedform,meanandthestandarddeviation(18±6),the1
stsubjectof
subjectoftheexposedgroupimproved2SD,andthe3
rdsubject
posed group, IVA results revealed significant
subject, all subscales, VA, AA, VRC and ARC improved significantly. AA and VRC
subject,butVAandARCdidnotchange.Inthe3
rdsubject,VA,
NFTgroupshowedclear
evidenceincontrastofNFTlearningasindexedbyincreasedinclinicalassessments.IncontrastthePRE
icationoftwomethodsNFTlearningasdescribed
inthisstudy.Furthermore,theDURINGstateexhibitedeffectivechangesalongtheLSELF
‐MFexposurein
assessments test, however, all participants showed
daccuracyintwogroupsboth,butmoreeffectivelyinexposedgroup.Astheresultsindicate,may

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 86 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
bydeterminingthebrainlocalmagnetic responsein differentregionstoELFfrequencyvariation, based
on the relation of EEG rhythms and behavior or electrophysiological and neurological fundamental
changes,control brainis achieved [11, 27, 50, 52, 53, 71]. By localizing theeffects andexplanation the
frequency magnetic response, the mechanism and effects could be clarified. The low amplitude of
magnetic neurological and physiological effects and the concept of magnetic frequency response in
biologicalsystemespeciallyonbrain can beusedas a clinical instrument andbraincontrol [22,26,48,
71].Therefore,theattenuatingandreinforcingeffectsofLocalSELFMFandgenerallyELFMFfieldsmight
beproducedbythedecrementorincrementofEEGrhythms.Basedontheoreticalviewpointofmagnetic
induction resonance effects on cerebral waves it is proposed to systematically impose meaningful
changesonEEGsignal,eitheractivelyorinactively[22,48,67,68,72],whichneedsmorestudiesyet.To
eliminate the effectiveness of individuals on results, ELF can be used, that leads to decreasing of
treatment sessions and achieving a desired status. Thus simultaneously using ELF in a system with
properNFTprotocol increased theefficiencyofthismethod.Thesestrategyofusingcomposedmethods
andtheoretical viewpointin this project,is toeliminate theNFT deficiencies.In orderto speed upand
improve the method by the results of ELF MF exposure, the role of individual volition in treatment
processisdecreased;thereforethetreatmentsessions might bedecreasedasitis expected[11,52,53].
TheresultshowsthattheNeuro‐LSELF‐MFsystemmayhelpinspeedup the reinforcingthesubjectsin
training.

LIMITATIONS
Themostimportant limitationofthe presentstudyis smallsamplesize. Longtermeffectsor sustained
benefits could not be evaluated from this study, although results showed an effective novel method in
decreasingtheEEGrhythms.
CONCLUSION
The present investigation studied the impact of EL F‐MF with NF therapy simultaneously.  Our results
demonstrated that participants showed improved accuracy in both groups, but more effectively in
exposed group. In fact, LSELF‐MF‐NFT group showed clear evidence in contrast of NFT learning as
indexedbyincreasedinclinicalassessments.
Although,thereisnoconsensus onthe mechanismofELFeffects,but there are someevidencethatELF
exposurehas crucialeffects on humanbeing, brain andbrain activity[11,21, 26,28, 48, 50‐52,60, 62,
71].Although nointensive andsystematic effectwas determinedyet, oneofthe purposes of thisstudy
wasMF’s estimatingfrequency approach so thathave considerableinfluence oncerebral signalswhich
canbedesignedandevaluatedinprotocolstotreatsomepsychologicaldiseases.StudiesonMFeffectson
electricalactivityofhumanbrainandtheconceptualeffectsoffieldexposureoncognitionandperception
are insufficient. Often, inconsistencies i n test results are observed during th ese studies, which are the
consequencesofMF exposureprotocols that discussedbefore [11]. Althoughthese inconsistencies,itis
proventhatELFMFhasconclusiveeffects.Belletal.[56]showeddecreasedEEGactivityintheoccipital
regionbutnotinthecentralorparietalregionsafter10HzMFexposure.ItwasconcludedthataweakMF
appliedcontinuouslytohumansubjects for10 minutesresultedina reductionin brainelectricalactivity
atthefrequencyoftheMFduringtheoneminuteintervalfollowingterminationofthefield.Lyskovet al.
[33, 34] found significant increases in b eta (14‐25Hz) activity after 15 minutes of 45Hz ELF‐MF head
exposure.Lyskovetal.[73]45HzELF‐MFexposurecausesdecrementinthedeltaandthetaEEGrhythms
atthecentralparietalregion.Also,thedeltaandthetaEEGrhythmsatthefrontalregionsdecreasedthat
confirms our result. The result of ELF‐MF effect on neurons may was because of 45Hz effects on the
calciumionsthatdescribedbefore.Finally,moreresearchesareneededforconclusiveandcrucialeffects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ThisworkwassupportedbyYadegar‐e‐ImamKhomeini(RAH)Branch,IslamicAzadUniversity,Tehran,
Iran,and, International ScieneTech CarenCompany, Neuroscience and LaserProduction Company, and
Atieh Neuroscience Centre. The authors acknowledge helpful comments provided by the anonymous
reviewersandreferees.IwouldliketothankMr.HassanDavoudabadi(Headofproduction,International
ScieneTechCarenCompany)forhelp,support,andencouragement.
REFERENCES
1. C. M. Vicario and M. A. Nitsche, (2013)."Transcranial direct current stimulation: a remediation tool for the
treatmentofchildhoodcongenitaldyslexia?,"Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol.7,90‐105.
2. T. L. Richards, V. W. Berninger, E. H. Aylward, A. L. Richards, J. B. Thomson, W. E. Nagy, et al., (2002).
"Reproducibility of proton MR spectroscopic imaging (PEPSI): comparison of dyslexic and normal‐reading
Mehran et al

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 87 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
children and effects of treatment on brain lactate levels during language tasks," American Journal of
Neuroradiology, vol.23,pp.1678‐1685.
3. G.R.LyonandL.C.Moats,(1997)."Criticalconceptualandmethodologicalconsiderationsinreadingintervention
research,"Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol.30,pp.578‐588.
4. W.T. Siok, Z.Niu, Z. Jin, C. A. Perfetti, and L. H. Tan, (2008)."A structural–functionalbasis for dyslexiain the
cortexofChinesereaders,"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.105,pp.5561‐5566.
5. P. E. Turkeltaub, L. Gareau, D. L. Flowers, T. A. Zeffiro, and G. F. Eden,(2003). "Development of neural
mechanismsforreading,"Nature neuroscience, vol.6,pp.767‐773.
6. M.H.Breteler,M.Arns,S.Peters, I.Giepmans,andL.Verhoeven,(2010)."Improvementsin spellingafterQEEG‐
based neurofeedback in dyslexia: A randomized controlled treatment study," Applied psychophysiology and
biofeedback, vol.35,pp.5‐11.
7. J.E.WalkerandC.A.Norman,(2006)."Theneurophysiologyofdyslexia:Aselectivereviewwithimplicationsfor
neurofeedback remediation and results of treatmentin twelve consecutive patients,"Journal of Neurotherapy,
vol.10,pp.45‐55.
8. R.Breteler,(2011)."Neurofeedbacktreatmentofdyslexia,"Neuroscience Letters, vol.500,p.e5.
9. T. Fernández, T. Harmony, A. Fernández‐Bouzas, L. Díaz‐Comas, R. A. Prado‐Alcalá, P. Valdés‐Sosa, et al.,
(2007)."ChangesinEEGcurrentsourcesinducedbyneurofeedbackinlearningdisabledchildren.Anexploratory
study,"Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, vol.32,pp.169‐183.
10. M.A.Nazari,E.Mosanezhad,T.Hashemi,and A. Jahan,(2012)."Theeffectivenessofneurofeedbacktraining on
EEG coherence and neuropsychological functions in children with reading disability," Clinical EEG and
Neuroscience, vol.43,pp.315‐322.
11. Y. Zandi Mehran, M. Firoozabadi, and R. Rostami, (2013)."Brain Inconspicuous Effect by Local Sinusoidal
ExtremelyLowFrequencyMagneticExposure Based on Wavelet Packet Analysis:InnovationinOnlinePassive
NeurofeedbackTherapybytheNeuro‐LSELFSystem,"Journal of Neurotherapy, vol.17,pp.226‐247.
12. R.A.DykmanandP.T.Ackerman,(1992)."Diagnosingdyslexia:IQregressionpluscut‐points,"Journal of learning
disabilities.
13. P. T. Ackerman and R. A. Dykman, (1993)."Phonological processes, confrontational naming, and immediate
memoryindyslexia,"Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol.26,pp.597‐609.
14. D.J.Francis, J. M. Fletcher,K. K. Stuebing, G.R.Lyon, B. A.Shaywitz,and S. E.Shaywitz,(2005). "Psychometric
Approaches to the Identification of LD IQ and Achievement Scores Are Not Sufficient," Journal of Learning
Disabilities, vol.38,pp.98‐1085.
15. H.Tanaka,J.M.Black,C.Hulme,L.M.Stanley,S.R. Kesler,S.Whitfield‐Gabrieli, et al.,(2011)."Thebrainbasisof
thephonologicaldeficitindyslexiaisindependentofIQ,"Psychological science, vol.22,pp.1442‐1451.
16. M. Habib, (2000). "The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia an overview and working hypothesis,"
Brain, vol.123,pp.2373‐2399.
17. E.Ferrer, B. A. Shaywitz, J. M.Holahan,K.Marchione,andS.E.Shaywitz,(2010)."Uncouplingofreadingand IQ
overtimeempiricalevidenceforadefinitionofdyslexia,"Psychological Science, vol.21,pp.93‐101.
18. L.Ochs,(2006)."TheLowEnergyNeurofeedbackSystem(LENS):Theory,background,andintroduction,"Journal
of Neurotherapy, vol.10,pp.5‐39.
19. L.Ochs,(2006)."CommentontheTreatmentofFibromyalgiaSyndromeUsingLow‐IntensityNeurofeedbackwith
the Flexyx Neurotherapy System: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial, or How to Go Crazy Over Nearly
Nothing,"Journal of Neurotherapy, vol.10,pp.59‐61.
20. S.Larsen, R. Larsen,D. C. Hammond,S. Sheppard,L. Ochs, S.Johnson, et al.,(2006). "TheLENS neurofeedback
withanimals,"Journal of Neurotherapy, vol.10,pp.89‐104.
21. Z.Amirifalah,S.M.P. Firoozabadi, andS.A.Shafiei, (2013)."Local Exposure of BrainCentralAreas to a Pulsed
ELFMagneticFieldforaPurposefulChangeinEEG,"Clinical EEG and neuroscience, vol.44,pp.44‐52.
22. A.T.Barker,R.Jalinous,and I.L.Freeston,(1985)."Non‐invasivemagneticstimulationofhumanmotor cortex,"
The Lancet, vol.325,pp.1106‐1107.
23. G.Bell,A.Marino,A.Chesson,andF.Struve,(1991)."Humansensitivitytoweakmagneticfields,"The Lancet, vol.
338,pp.1521‐1522.
24. J. Bernhardt, (1992)."Non‐ionizing radiation safety: radiofrequency radiation, electric and magnetic fields,"
Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol.37,p.807.
25. C.Blackman,S. Benane,D. Elliott, D.House, and M.Pollock,(1988). "Influence ofelectromagnetic fields onthe
effluxofcalciumionsfrombraintissueinvitro:Athree‐modelanalysisconsistentwiththefrequencyresponse
upto510Hz,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.9,pp.215‐227.
26. C. Cook, D. Saucier, A. Thomas, and F. Prato,(2006). "Exposure to ELF magnetic and ELF‐modulated
radiofrequencyfields:The timecourseofphysiologicalandcognitive effectsobservedinrecentstudies(2001–
2005),"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.27,pp.613‐627.
27. C.Cook,D.Saucier,A.Thomas,andF.Prato,(2009)."ChangesinhumanEEGalphaactivityfollowingexposureto
twodifferentpulsedmagneticfieldsequences,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.30,pp.9‐20.
28. C.M.Cook,A.W.Thomas,L.Keenliside,andF.S.Prato,(2005)."RestingEEGeffectsduringexposuretoapulsed
ELFmagneticfield,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.26,pp.367‐376.
29. D. Cvetkovic and I. Cosic, (2009)."Alterations of human electroencephalographic activity caused by multiple
extremelylow frequency magneticfield exposures," Medical & biological engineering & computing, vol.47, pp.
1063‐1073.
Mehran et al

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 88 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
30. M.S.George,Z.Nahas,F.A.Kozel,X.Li,S.Denslow,K.Yamanaka, et al.,(2002)."Mechanismsandstateoftheart
oftranscranialmagneticstimulation,"The journal of ECT, vol.18,pp.170‐181,2002.
31. K. Iramina, T. Maeno, Y. Kowatari, and S. Ueno, (2002)."Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on EEG
activity,"Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol.38,pp.3347‐3349.
32. V. Lednev, (1991)."Possible mechanism for the influence of weak magnetic fields on biological systems,"
Bioelectromagnetics, vol.12,pp.71‐75.
33. E.Lyskov,J.Juutilainen,V.Jousmaki,O.Hänninen,S.Medvedev,andJ.Partanen,(1993)."Influenceofshort‐term
exposureofmagneticfieldonthebioelectricalprocessesofthebrainandperformance,"International Journal of
Psychophysiology, vol.14,pp.227‐231.
34. E. B. Lyskov, J. Juutilainen, V. Jousmäki, J. Partanen, S. Medvedev, and O. Hänninen, (19 93)."Effects of 45‐Hz
magneticfieldsonthefunctionalstateofthehumanbrain,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.14,pp.87‐95.
35. A. Pascual‐Leone, V. Walsh, and J. Rothwell, (2000). "Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive
neuroscience–virtuallesion,chronometry,andfunctional connectivity,"Current opinion in neurobiology, vol.10,
pp.232‐237.
36. A.Postand M. E. Keck, (2001)."Transcranialmagneticstimulationasatherapeutictoolinpsychiatry: what do
weknowabouttheneurobiologicalmechanisms?,"Journal of psychiatric research, vol.35,pp.193‐215.
37. J. A. Robertson, A. W. Thomas, Y. Bureau, and F. S. Prato,(2007). "The influence of extremely low frequency
magneticfieldsoncytoprotectionandrepair,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.28,pp.16‐30,2007.
38. M. Vázquez‐Garcı́a, D. Elı́as‐Viñ as, G.Reyes‐Guerrero,A. Domı́nguez‐Gonzá lez,L. Verdugo‐Dı́az, andR. Guevara‐
Guzmán,"Exposuretoextremelylow‐frequencyelectromagneticfieldsimprovessocialrecognitioninmalerats,"
Physiology & behavior, vol.82,pp.685‐690,2004.
39. G. Gerardi, A. De Ninno, M. Prosdocimi, V. Ferrari, F. Barbaro, S. Mazzariol, et al., (2008)."Effects of
electromagnetic fields of low frequency and low intensity on rat metabolism," Biomagnetic research and
technology, vol.6,p.3.
40. S. Ghione, C. D. Seppia, L. Mezzasalma, and L. Bonfiglio,(2005). "Effects of 50Hz electromagnetic fields on
electroencephalographic alpha activity, dental pain threshold and cardiovascular parameters in humans,"
Neuroscience letters, vol.382,pp.112‐117.
41. S. C. Ghione S, Mezzasalma L, Bonfiglio L,(2005b)."Effects of 50Hz electromagnetic fields on
electroencephalographic alpha activity, dental pain threshold and cardiovascular parameters in humans,"
Neuroscience Letters, pp.112‐17.
42. R. Piacentini, C. Ripoli, D. Mezzogori, G. B. Azzena, and C. Grassi, (2008). "Extremely low‐frequency
electromagnetic fields promote in vitro neurogenesis via upregulation of Cav1‐channel activity," Journal of
cellular physiology, vol.215,pp.129‐139.
43. M. Pirozzoli, C. Marino, G. Lovisolo, C. Laconi, L. Mosiello, and A. Negroni,(2003). "Effects of 50 Hz
electromagnetic field exposure on apoptosis and differentiation in a neuroblastoma cell line,"
Bioelectromagnetics, vol.24,pp.510‐516.
44. M.A.Nitsche,A.Schauenburg,N.Lang, D. Liebetanz, C. Exner, W. Paulus, et al.,(2003)."Facilitationof implicit
motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human,"
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol.15,pp.619‐626.
45. A. Rogalewski, C. Breitenstein, M. A. Nitsche, W. Paulus, and S. Knecht, (2004)."Transcranial direct current
stimulationdisruptstactileperception,"European Journal of Neuroscience, vol.20,pp.313‐316.
46. K. S. Utz, V. Dimova, K. Oppenländer, and G. Kerkhoff,(2010). "Electrified minds: transcranial direct current
stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non‐invasive brainstimulation in
neuropsychology—areviewofcurrentdataandfutureimplications,"Neuropsychologia, vol.48,pp.2789‐281,.
47. J. Bardasano, J. Álvarez‐Ude, I. Gutiérrez, and R. Goya, (2005). "New device against non‐thermal effects from
mobiletelephones,"Environmentalist, vol.25,pp.257‐263.
48. J. Bardasano and E. Ramirez, (1997). "Extracranial Device for Noninvasive Neurological Treatments with
PulsatingELFMagneticFields,"inSecond World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine.
49. G.ThutandA.Pascual‐Leone,(2010)."AreviewofcombinedTMS‐EEGstudiestocharacterizelastingeffectsof
repetitiveTMSandassesstheirusefulnessincognitiveandclinicalneuroscience,"Brain topography, vol.22,pp.
219‐232.
50. C.Cook,A.Thomas,and F. Prato,(2002)."Humanelectrophysiologicaland cognitive effects of exposuretoELF
magneticandELFmodulatedRFandmicrowavefields:Areviewofrecentstudies,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.23,
pp.144‐157.
51. D. Cvetkovic and I. Cosic,(2006). "Automated ELF magnetic field stimulation of the human EEG activity,"
Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, vol.13,pp.313‐328.
52. Y. Z. Mehran, M. Firoozabadi, and R. Rostami, (2013)."Analysis of EEG rhythms under local sinusoidal ELF
magnetic field exposure: An approach to neurofeedback enhancement on attention performance," Journal of
Biomedical Science & Engineering, vol.6.
53. Y. Z. Mehran, M. Firoozabadi, and R. Rostami,(2014). "Improvement of Neurofeedback Therapy for Improved
AttentionThroughFacilitationofBrainActivityUsingLocalSinusoidalExtremelyLowFrequencyMagneticField
Exposure,"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, p.1550059414524403.
54. G.B.Bell,A.A.Marino,etal.,(1992)."Alterationsinbrainelectricalactivitycausedbymagneticfields:Detecting
thedetectionproces," Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 83(6), pp.389‐397.
Mehran et al

ABR Vol 7 [5] September 2016 89 | P a g e ©2016 Society of Education, India
55. G.B.Bell,A.A.Marino,and A. L. Chesson, (1994)."Frequency‐specific responsesin thehumanbraincausedby
electromagneticfields,"Journal of the neurological sciences, vol.123,pp.26‐32.
56. G. B. Bell, A. A. Marino, and A. L. Chesson,(1994). "Frequency‐specificblocking in the human brain caused by
electromagneticfields,"Neuroreport, vol.5,pp.510‐512..
57. C.M.Cook,A.W.Thomas,andF.S.Prato,(2004)."RestingEEGisaffectedbyexposuretoapulsedELFmagnetic
field,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.25,pp.196‐203.
58. C.I.CvetkovicD.,(2006)."AutomatedELFMagnetic FieldStimulationontheHumanEEGActivity,"inIntegrated
Computer-Aided Engineering.56‐90.
59. Z.Amiri Fallah, M. Firoozabadi,A. Shafiei, andA.Assadi,(2011)."Scrutinyof brain signals variationsinregions
Cz,C3 andC4underLocalExposure of Extremely Low Frequency and Weak pulsed MagneticFieldtopromote
Neurofeedbacksystems,"Physiology and Pharmacology, vol.15,pp.144‐163.
60. C.Blackman,S.Benane,D.House,and W. Joines,(1985). "Effects of ELF (1–120 Hz) andmodulated(50Hz)RF
fieldsontheeffluxofcalciumionsfrombraintissueinvitro,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.6,pp.1‐11.
61. C. Blackman, S. Benane, J. Rabinowitz, D. House, and W. Joines, (1985). "A Role for the magnetic field in the
radiation‐inducedeffluxofcalciumionsfrombraintissueinvitro,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.6,pp.327‐337.
62. C.F.Blackman,S.G.Benane,L.S.Kinney,W.T.Joines,andD.E.House,(1982)."Effectsof ELFfieldsoncalcium‐
ioneffluxfrombraintissueinvitro,"Radiation Research, vol.92,pp.510‐520.
63. M. Zhadin and F. Barnes,(2005). "Frequency and amplitude wind ows in the combined action of DC and low
frequency AC magnetic fields on ion thermal motion in a macromolecule: Theoretical analysis,"
Bioelectromagnetics, vol.26,pp.323‐330.
64. M.ZhadinandE.Fesenko,(1990)."Ioniccyclotronresonanceinbiomolecules,"Biomedical science, vol.1,pp.245‐
250.
65. M.ZhadinandL.Giuliani,(2006)."Someproblemsinmodernbioelectromagnetics,"Electromagnetic biology and
medicine, vol.25,pp.227‐243.
66. M. N. Zhadin, (1998)."Combined action of static and alternating magnetic fields on ion motion in a
macromolecule:theoreticalaspects,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.19,pp.279‐292.
67. M.N. Zhadin,(2001)."Review of Russian literature on biological action of DC and low‐frequency AC magnetic
fields,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.22,pp.27‐45.
68. M.N.Zhadin,O.N.Deryugina,andT.M.Pisachenko,(1999)."InfluenceofcombinedDCandACmagneticfieldson
ratbehavior,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.20,pp.378‐386.
69. M.N. Zhadin,V.V.Novikov,F.S.Barnes, and N.F.Pergola,"Combinedactionof static andalternatingmagnetic
fieldsonioniccurrentinaqueousglutamicacidsolution,"Bioelectromagnetics, vol.19,pp.41‐45,1998.
70. R. Kormi‐Nouri, R. S. Shojaei, S. Moniri, A. R. Gholami, A. R. Moradi, S. Akbari‐Zardkhaneh, et al.,(2008). "The
effectofchildhoodbilingualismonepisodicandsemanticmemorytasks,"Scandinavian journal of psychology, vol.
49,pp.93‐109.
71. F.Capone,M. Dileone,P.Profice,F. Pilato, G. Musumeci, G. Minicuci, et al.,(2009)."Doesexposuretoextremely
lowfrequencymagneticfieldsproducefunctionalchangesinhumanbrain?,"Journal of Neural Transmission, vol.
116,pp.257‐265.
72. D. Edmonds,(1993). "Larmor precession as a mechanism for the detection of static and alternating magnetic
fields,"Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, vol.30,pp.3‐12.
73. J.J.Lyskov E, JousmakiV,Hanninen O,MedvedevS, Partanen J, (1993b). "Influence of short‐termexposureof
magneticfieldonthe bioelectrical processes of the brainandperformance,"Int J Psychophysiol, pp.14(3):227–
31.















Copyright: © 2016 Society of Education. This isan open accessarticle distributed underthe Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
originalworkisproperlycited.
Mehran et al