The Effect of Variable Microcurrents on EEG Spectrum and Pain Control [Abstract]

Heffernan, Michael. Canadian Journal of Clinical Medicine, 4(10):4-11, 1997.

Fifty subjects were evaluated in this two part double-blind study in which the researcher proposed a model of spectral smoothing using EEG (API Neurodata system) as a measure of regeneration and pain reduction. In phase 1, 2 minute spectral averages of root mean square EEG amplitude versus frequency were compared between two groups: a normal group of pain free persons (N=10), and an age (40 - 65 years old, mean of 60), sex matched group of pain patients with degenerative joint disease (N=10). The pain patients had at least eight hours of pain per day for at least two years, and the pain-free subjects had no pain for two years. Pain-free subjects produced smooth declining spectral curves (mean deviation in RMS = 0.2, P>0.1), whereas the pain group showed many irregularities, and significant "unevenness" in EEG spectral arrays (mean deviation in RMS = 2.4, P>.01). On the basis of these findings and prior research the researcher proposed using spectral smoothness as a model to evaluate the effectiveness of differing microcurrent stimulators in safely treating pain patients.

In phase 2, 30 pain patients half males, half females, 30-65 years old, with at least two years of DJD of hip, shoulder, knee, or back, confirmed by X-ray, and unresponsive to medication, completed informed consent and were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Double blinding was achieved by placing the stimulators out of sight of both the investigator and subjects. They were each given a five minute test dose of stimulation from three differing stimulators, a 15 Hz, 500 Hz, and 15,000 Hz device (Liss Stimulator), a 0.5 Hz, random, biphasic device (Alpha-Stim), and a continuous 0.5 Hz device for control (BK Instruments). Using current limited, 500 µA stimulation bilaterally to the wrists, post stimulation spectral smoothing and pain control was found to be superior with the Alpha-Stim (deviation from normal FFT 3.1 pre to 0.4 post, P<.01). Although all three stimulators produced approximately a tenfold increase in RMS amplitude, the control 0.5 Hz device (deviation from normal FFT 2.7 pre to 2.6 post, P>0.1) and the Liss Stimulator (deviation from normal FFT 2.8 pre to 3.0 post, P>0.1) both produced considerable distortion from the EEG spectrum of normal, pain free subjects. Ordinal five-point pain scales before and after stimulation showed that only the Alpha-Stim produced significant pain control with a five minute test dose 4.5 to 2.1, (P<.01), versus 4.3 to 4.5 (P>0.1) with the Liss Stimulator, and 4.6 to 4.8 (P>0.1) with the control device.

The researcher discusses these findings by proposing a theory of rapid pain control from regenerative restoration of normal cellular electrical fields. This theory of rapid pain reduction by electric field restoration is then contrasted with pain control by stress induction and increased production of endorphins. Finally the researcher discusses implications of using the spectral smoothing of both EEG and body fields as a model of reversing the negative, carcinogenic effects of externally applied extremely low frequency (ELF) when used therapeutically or delivered inadvertently from human electrical power usage. No side effects were reported.

NOT ALL WAVEFORMS ARE ALIKE!

The following charts are modified from Heffernan, 1997.

FIGURE 1: Two minute spectrum of EEG, frequency
versus RMS amplitude, for a pain free normal subject.

FIGURE 2: Two minute spectrum of EEG, frequency
versus RMS amplitude, for a pain subject with DJD.

 
FIGURE 3: Two minute spectrum of EEG, frequency versus amplitude,
of a subject while being treated with the 15, 500,15K "Liss Device."

 
FIGURE 4: Two minute spectrum of EEG, frequency versus amplitude,
of a subject while being treated with the "Alpha-Stim 100" device.

FIGURE 5: Two minute spectrum of EEG, frequency versus amplitude,
of a subject while being treated with a 0.5 Hz, function generator.

Correlation Function Explanation The correlation function is
obtained by multiplying each X(t) by X(t-tau) and summing the
result over all the data points. The sum is then plotted as a function
of tau. This gives a measure of how dependent data points are on
their neighbors. The value of tau at which the correlation function
remains small is the correlation time.

The graph shows that CES was dramatically more effective in improving the anxiety score on the State/Trait Anxiety Inventory than was the relaxation training, and that it also reduced overall muscle tension, while those in the relaxation training group actually ended with more muscle tension.

 Effect of Variable Microcurrents on Pain Control 767.39 Kb