[Neuro] Eyes-open EEG stimulation via the ear canals

[Gregory Perry]

I would disagree with your's and Sai's characterization that the article in question was an "incorrect citation" and not causally related to the topic of discussion, irrespective of Sai's expletive-laden retorts.

I am also not aware of any "unnecessary enthusiasm" on my part, unless I have somehow inadvertently subscribed to a mortuary sciences discussion list.

By using an EEG acquisition setup, which I believe would somewhat qualify as a "scientific" device, influences on brainwave activity can be observed with the use of pulsed in-ear light sources.  No medical claims have been made, the project is clearly labeled as an open source experimentation platform for photic stimulation, and the target goal for funding is about $20K less than what it will actually take to develop and bring to market any of the intended devices.

Carry on.

________________________________________
From: neuro-bounces at lists.noisebridge.net [neuro-bounces at lists.noisebridge.net] on behalf of Mike Schachter [mschachter at eigenminds.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Sai
Cc: neuro at lists.noisebridge.net
Subject: Re: [Neuro] Eyes-open EEG stimulation via the ear canals

Hey Sai,

I'm also quite skeptical of all this, but not completely dismissive of
it. Here's the published paper from the Valkee people about OPN3
immuno-labeling:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y137358800436w51/

Using 10 rats, they immuno-label OPN3 protein and find it expressed in
cortex, cerebellum, and hypothalamus. It'd be interesting to see some
studies from people who aren't affiliated with a company that produces
in-ear light therapy products. That's what makes this study so
suspect. Some of the authors stand to make serious financial gain from
skewing their results. In most papers you see a small section where
the authors declare no conflict of interest. In this case, there is no
such section and a HUGE conflict of interest.

Also, the unecessary enthusiasm of Mr. Perry and his incorrect
citation of a paper that deals with optogenetics that has nothing to
do with light sensitive neurons in the brain makes me more skeptical.
Maybe you guys should tone it down a bit, you're just shooting light
into people's ears and hoping it works. Which is fine. But not
science.

 mike



On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Sai <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM, LinkReincarnate
> <linkreincarnate at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Google Scholar thinks it's on the up and up...
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bright+light+therapy&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
>
> Bright light therapy in general certainly is — I have a lightbox at
> home, prescribed by my doctor.
>
> But guess what: it works through the *eyes*. Which actually do have
> light receptors. :-)
>
>> The point is that the science behind it is sound. Sham studies of bright
>> light therapy are everywhere.
>
> Yes, for the kind that use lightboxes on eyes. Not for ears.
>
> - Sai
> _______________________________________________
> Neuro mailing list
> Neuro at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/neuro
_______________________________________________
Neuro mailing list
Neuro at lists.noisebridge.net
https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/neuro