ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

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.
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
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 datasuggests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surprisingphenomenon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 ofthe subjectsof theexposed groupwas 90,while wasnear tothe 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50T for DC magneticfield and
400Trmsfor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(labelledas 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‐
Fig. 1. Themeanofamplitude
comparisontoS
inLSELF
ofPREin LSELF‐
wasdifferentsign
DURINGinLSELF‐
three statuses
83 | P a g e ©2016
inLSELF‐
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 QEEGbetween group assessments wasperformed 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
relativ
thethreestatesareshownin
not found..
Fig.
Neuro-LSELF-MF
POST),collapse
84 | P a g e ©2016
and
harepeated‐
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
andtheexperimentalgroups.
Table 2
Aver age Domain:
90 t o 1 09
Experimental Group
1
st
subject
Stat us
PRE
POST
A-Re spo nse
Cont rol104
108
V-Re spo ns e
Cont rol @@
A-At ten tion
64
103
V-At ten ti on
@
@
@:invalid
improved1SD,the2nd
theEEGrhythmsresultsth
DISCUSSION
field (L‐DC‐S‐ELF‐
According
changes; in the 1st
AAa
improve
85 | P a g e ©2016
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
@
@
@
rd
localDCand sinusoidal
nd
nd
‐MF‐
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localmagnetic 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‐MFsystemmayhelpinspeedup the reinforcingthesubjectsin
training.
LIMITATIONS
Themostimportant limitationofthe presentstudyis smallsamplesize. Longterm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 crucialeffects on humanbeing, brain andbrain activity[11,21, 26,28, 48, 50‐52,60, 62,
71].Although nointensive andsystematic effectwas 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 minutesresulted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
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Researchers have long been interested in the effects of low intensity (less than 500 microtesla) and Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields (ELF-MF, less than 300 Hz) on human's brain activity. In this study, our purpose was to analyze the effect of local magnetic field pulses around brain regions Cz, C3, C4 on human electroencephalogram (EEG) and induction of resonance effect formedical utilization in Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS). Methods: EEG of 15 healthy women was recorded in four sessions (3 exposure sessions and one session as sham). In exposure sessions, ELF-MF pulses were exerted locally for 3 minutes with intensities of 100, 200 and 300 microtesla with frequencies of 10 Hz on region Cz, 18 Hz on region C3 and 14 Hz on region C4. Frequency bands power were extracted from participants' EEGs and were compared during, before and after the exposure with each other andwith the sham session. Comparison between exposure groups and sham group were performed with independent t-test and paired t-test. Results: The results showed that pulsed and local ELF-MF decreases the beta band power in all three regions during the exposure (7.9 to 11.6 percent) in comparison with before the exposure with 95% certainty. Meanwhile developed variations during the exposure are transient and different from variations after interruption of exposure. The resonance effect was observed nowhere around the regions. Conclusion: Exertion of ELF-MF pulses on human brain locally change the EEG pattern and alterations persist for 15 minutes after exposure. Also EEG of other central regions varies. Therefore for recognition of effects of these fields and application of them in LENS we should consider simultaneous exposure and interhemispheric ELF-MF.
Article
Full-text available
Traditional neurofeedback (NF) is a training approach aimed at altering brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG) rhythms as feedback. In NF training, external factors such as the subjects' intelligence can have an effect. In contrast, a low-energy NF system (LENS) does not require conscious effort from the subject, which results in fewer attendance sessions. However, eliminating the subject role seems to eliminate an important part of the NF system. This study investigated the facilitating effect on the theta-to-beta ratio from NF training, using a local sinusoidal extremely low frequency magnetic field (LSELF-MF) versus traditional NF. Twenty-four healthy, intelligent subjects underwent 10 training sessions to enhance beta (15-18 Hz), and simultaneously inhibit theta (4-7 Hz) and high beta (22-30 Hz) activity, at the Cz point in a 3-boat-race video game. Each session consisted of 3 statuses, PRE, DURING, and POST. In the DURING status, the NF training procedure lasted 10 minutes. Subjects were led to believe that they would be exposed to a magnetic field during NF training; however, 16 of the subjects who were assigned to the experimental group were really exposed to 45 Hz-360 µT LSELF-MF at Cz. For the 8 other subjects, only the coil was located at the Cz point with no exposure. The duty cycle of exposure was 40% (2-second exposure and 3-second pause). The results show that the theta-to-beta ratio in the DURING status of each group differs significantly from the PRE and POST statuses. Between-group analysis shows that the theta-to-beta ratio in the DURING status of the experimental group is significantly (P < .001) lower than in the sham group. The result shows the effect of LSELF-MF on NF training.
Article
Full-text available
Neurofeedback (NF) is a training approach that aims to reinforce brain activity by using the information of human electroencephalogram (EEG) rhythms as a feedback. In addition, some studies have reported Extremely Low Frequency (0–300 Hz, intensity<500 mT) Magnetic Field (ELF MF) effects upon the EEG and its rhythms. The purpose of this study is to determine if an approach that combines the effects of Local Sinusoidal Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields (LSELF MF) with NF yields higher performance on desired NF goals. The NF protocol used in this study consisted of enhancement of the beta rhythm and inhibition of theta and high beta rhythms in exposed and sham groups for the purpose of improving attention. Twenty-four healthy subjects of at least average intelligence attended 10 sessions of NF training. Sixteen of them were exposed to 45 Hz sinusoidal ELF (360 mT) at F3 to lead to the desired LSELF MF effects on Cz. Wavelet packet analysis was used for the detection of changes in EEG rhythms. Results suggest that, compared to sham exposure, LSELF magnetic waves can significantly affect and modulate brainwaves according to this new Neurofeedback approach. In comparison to sham exposure, improved ability to attend (as measured by a decrease in the theta-to-beta ratio) was observed when LSELF MF was combined with NF (p<.05). The hypothesis that LSELF MF can affect the theta-to-beta ratio was confirmed. These effects occurred after approximately 10 min of each NF procedure. This study aimed to pilot a new NF system known as the Neuro-ELF system, a method that may allow for more effective control of brainwave activity. However, we suggest that the effects of LSELF-NF require further research.
Article
Full-text available
Although there is no consensus with respect to that if exposed Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field (ELF-MF) affects human brain activity for guidelines brain management, there are some evidences related with human attention changes. Therefore, this study evaluates the effects of 45 Hz sinusoidal ELF (360 μT) at Cz regions, cantered at dominant frequency using Electroencephalogram (EEG) analysis. The purpose was to extracte transient or permanent events as an index for new neurofeedback (NF) system improvement. Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged between 20 and 28 years of age were randomly assigned to one of two groups, which differed in the type of NF training concerning the exposed and non-exposed magnetic field effect on performance in attention tests during NF. Results indicate that theta and beta EEG rhythms variations in exposed group changed more significantly in comparison of traditional NF (P < 0.05). These results suggest a new design of NF system.
Article
Full-text available
The automated tracking system was designed and developed with the goal to generate a consistent pattern of the extremely low frequency (ELF) or radio frequency (RF) magnetic field distribution around the human head. The automated tracking system consisted of mechanical, control software and hardware designs which all passed through a development process of refinement and operational performance of the robotic arm, the general user interface, communication, motor control and electromagnetic field computation. In this paper, the automated tracking system was utilised for the single-blind counter-balanced pilot study to investigate whether the human electroencephalographic (EEG) activity could be altered when stimulated by localised ELF magnetic field at the top-central human head region. The statistical results performed on the recorded EEG data revealed a significant difference between exposure and control, found in the Alpha1 EEG band (7.5-9.5 Hz) at the vertex head position, where magnetic field stimulation was applied at the Alpha1 frequency of 8.33 Hz. However, the post-hoc statistical Alpha adjustment analysis did not reveal any significant differences between exposure and control. We assume that the effect in the Alpha1 EEG findings is possibly related to 'synchronisation', 'induced rhythmic' and 'synchrony spread' theories of neuron firing rate after ELF magnetic field.
Article
Full-text available
Developmental dyslexia (DD) is a neuropsychological condition that is characterized by the persistent difficulty in learning to read amongst people with typical education, motivation, and normal intelligence (Goswami et al., 2006). On the other hand, a recent study (Callens et al., 2012) has pinpointed that when taking the full cognitive profile of students with DD into account, a quite consistent deficiency on a wide range of tasks, predominantly those involving the speed of processing and retrieval of verbal information from long term memory, can be identified. Improved reading by training programs in Childhood Congenital Dyslexia (CDD) leads rarely to full restitution, even in children submitted to intensive interventions. A major progress in the treatment of this disorder could originate from the development of complementary approaches that may enhance existing remediation programs by providing rehabilitation benefits that are larger and stable over time.
Article
Recent studies indicate that exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF MFs) influences human electroencephalographic (EEG) alpha activity and pain perception. In the present study we analyse the effect on electrical EEG activity in the alpha band (8–13 Hz) and on nociception in 40 healthy male volunteers after 90-min exposure of the head to 50 Hz ELF MFs at a flux density of 40 or 80 T in a double-blind randomized sham-controlled study. Since cardiovascular regulation is functionally related to pain modulation, we also measured blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) during treatment. Alpha activity after 80 T magnetic treatment almost doubled compared to sham treatment. Pain threshold after 40 T magnetic treatment was significantly lower than after sham treatment. No effects were found for BP and HR. We suggest that these results may be explained by a modulation of sensory gating processes through the opioidergic system, that in turn is influenced by magnetic exposure.
Article
This study examines the simultaneous exposure of 2 brain areas in the location of central electrodes (C3 and C4) to a weak and pulsed extremely low-frequency magnetic field (ELF-MF) on the electroencephalogram (EEG). The intent is to change the EEG for a therapeutic application, such as neurofeedback, by inducing the "resonance effect." A total of 10 healthy women received 9 minutes of ELF-MF (intensity 200 μT) and sham in a counterbalanced design. ELF-MF exposure frequencies were 10, 14, and 18 Hz. The paired t test revealed that local pulsed ELF-MF significantly decreases beta (15-25 Hz), sensorimotor rhythm (13-15 Hz), and theta (4-8 Hz) powers at a frequency of 10 Hz in C3 and C4 regions (12.0%-26.6%) after exposure, in comparison with that achieved during the exposure (P < .05). Variations during the exposure were transient and different from those after. The resonance effect was observed nowhere around the regions. The study suggests that this technique may be applied in the treatment of anxiety; however, further investigation is needed.