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

Mike Schachter mschachter at eigenminds.com
Thu Oct 11 18:42:21 UTC 2012


Also, I just want to point out that the hypothalamus is pretty deep
within the brain. The penetration depth of light in the brain may be
pretty low, like less than 3mm, as noted by this paper:

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-42-16-3321

That also means the cerebellum is probably not accessible by light
from the ear canal. I'm no anatomy expert, but would be curious to see
what part of the cortex, if any, is within range of the ear canals.

Just to be clear - I don't want to discourage Mr. Perry or anybody
from messing around with the brains of themselves or others! EEG and
light therapy are fun things to play with. But it's not ok to cite
questionable papers as scientific evidence and then ramble on about
patenting things. There's no need to be so defensive if your goal is
to actually find something that works.

 mike




On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Mike Schachter
<mschachter at eigenminds.com> wrote:
> 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


More information about the Neuro mailing list