Read about this in the latest issue of “New Scientist”
http://www2.valkee.com/uk/
I’ll refrain from commenting… judge for yourself.
There’s a link to the study on their site:
http://www2.valkee.com/uk/evidence/science/
If it works for SAD, I think this would be easier to integrate than sitting in front of those light therapy lamps.
I would agree that it looks like that at the first critical glance. The original studies released on the subject certainly weren’t anywhere near satisfactory for justifying claims they made.
However, there has actually been a recent fMRI study with a sham control condition in which higher BOLD activity was supposedly found in somatosensory cortex, lateral occipital cortex and the (especially anterior) cerebellum when under direct light administration via an optic fibre through in the ear.
This is actually reasonable evidence that brain tissue itself is photosensitive, with possible photosensitive opsins having been already identified adding to its plausibility.
Of course there is still a jump to be made to claim any robust clinical benefits, and I would add that I haven’t had time to read the paper in any real detail, but it seems that there may be some potential to the idea.
If you’re interested, the paper is available here: Stimulating brain tissue with bright light alters functional connectivity in brain at the resting state Just click the yellow ‘Open Access’ box near the top to open a PDF.
Well, both sides are kinda off here (as usual I think). Yes the brain is light sensitive, not just to the eyes. But there are a huge amount of questions before something like this can be useful as a treatment, some of the many many questions include how much light produces what effect?, is the effect useful or just detectable on scans?, what are the “useful” wavelength ranges, are there differences in effect based on wavelength?, how long/dosage?, is just the fact of sticking something in your ears doing the stimulation?, How about the increase in humidity or temperature also associated with sticking something in your ears for a period of time, could that be causing any seen effects?, and what happens when you have a massively high “dose”?, can you cause “over stimulation”?, etc etc etc….
Along with one final nagging question that I think everyone here can answer on their own: How can it cost $300 to make short use tiny LEDs to stick in your ears, is there possibly some bias and inflation here? 
At Budget Light Forum, we just aim our $7 C8s at our ears for faster cheaper stimulation and more penetration!
I want something to blow smoke up my butt!
hehehehehe
Really?
Sorry, I felt like a doctor for a minute then, reading your post!
It is a colloquialism used to describe someone flattering you for no known or obvious reason. They are usually setting you up for something by complementing you.
Ahh, thanks! It is a strange expression; I had to look it up, which led me here:
Most tissue is photosensitive to a greater or lesser degree, after 4.5 billion years of evolution, if the brain was meant to be exposed to bright light your skull would have a sunroof.
This ear bud torch sales are still based on psuedo science and gullibility :~
So, expressing abnormal interest in flashlight (like we all do, right) is actually caused by foton insufficiency in the brain :D
Now you are thinking on the right track! We’ll just petition to get them to include our flashlight habit in the new DSM 5 so we have an official name for our “condition”/”disability” and can apply for aid to buy flashlights to treat it through health insurance, right?
Well what I found interesting about the study is that it was a genuine double blind method with a sham control condition. So it was certainly the light administered causing the effect, now I didn’t have time to examine their statistical analysis section in detail so I can’t be sure exactly how robust the effects were; for one thing the familywise error rate is massive when you consider the amount of voxels examined in a whole brain fMRI scan, which can lead to a lot of Type 1 errors if left uncorrected for.
The idea I think is that it is already well established that melatonin levels are high in SAD sufferers and with serotonin deficiency being highly implicated clinical depression, hence the clinical efficacy of SSRIs. Along with the fact that (afaik) melatonin converts to serotonin when under indirect stimulation from short wavelength light (blue) via melanopsin receptors, which is a key factor in maintaining circadian rhythms. This means that bright light stimulation (especially short wavelength) via the eyes will convert more melatonin to serotonin and off-set the issues caused through this same system by shorter days and thus less exposure to direct natural sunlight.
The idea with this more direct means of light administration is that it may be possible to directly affect melanopsins in the brain, with similar clinical effects. The recent study seems to provide evidence that it is effective at causing some effect in the areas mentioned. Whether that points towards clinical efficacy in the way that they hope remains to be seen.
Of course I agree that $300 is a massive markup for what should be relatively easy to make for yourself for under $15.
I don't know about all this .
I mean , it doesn't seem to be doing much for JohnnyMac ...
No, and that’s one big problem with this study, I did not see a description of how “sham” treatment was delivered. To exclude other effects, like tactile or temperature or humidity stimulus, you would have to insert the device in the sham treatment and make certain nobody can tell if it is or isnt on.
Yes exactly, and if you read down, I think ALL involved in interpreting the data had conflicts of interest: Authors’ con-nections with Valkee Ltd. are: Nissilä and Aunio are company founders. Nissilä, Aunio, Takala and Timonen are share-holders (varying from major to minor). Nissilä, Aunio and live-in partner of Starck are employed by Valkee Ltd.”
Right, that’s what I was trying to say, even if there WAS a verified observed effect, you cant just jump to “OK this is a good treatment, lets do this”, the next step is to find what does it actually do and is it effective in changing anything. Then, there is the consideration, does it change the brain’s response over time and does it continue to remain effective or does the brain adapt to it? Also what is the body’s response over time? Could this light stimulation be interpreted by the body as an irritant and cause defense mechanisms to be activated? (very reasonable and maybe likely, since if so much light is getting in there, maybe we have a hole in the skull…) Anyways, I see even the best possible interpretation of the study to be a scratch on the surface: we can only conclude the body does sense something here, not go buy a 10x marked up light to stick in your ears.
So, after all this, are you shining your flashlights in your ear yet? 
I’m not going to re-quote quotes as it would probably get a bit confusing, but…
1. The sham condition was simply the same sitation as the experimental condition but with the light switched off. Participants were blindfolded and supposedly unable to discriminate between which condition they were in.
2. I realise there is a conflict of interest and that does need to be taken into account in an interpretation. But I believe the paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, unlike their previous ones.
3. You’re right that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions in inferring an effective clinical effect, but the putative mechanisms by which one could exist are already known. It just needs testing properly before any outright claims are made.
The brains natural adaptation to the effect is ultimately the whole point. The amount of light administered is actually equivalent to the amount that would reach the brain through the ear canal (an actual, but natural, hole in the skull) in direct sunlight. In this way it essentially tries to mimic the effects of being in direct sunlight, much light traditional light therapy does, rather than doing anything to severely alter an internal chemical state. As it is essentially replicating conditions that would be natural day to day then there is really no reason that the brain would ‘activate defence mechanisms’ or adapt to the effect over a longer period than the time it is administered.
That said, I genuinely can’t vouch for it working. Just point out that it is plausible.
Sorry, I missed this post. That is true, but remember that it is only the last 80,000 years or so that humans have been adapting to conditions out of Africa. Most of our period of evolutionary ancestry was in bright sunlight every day, some people experience deficiencies now that they don’t experience those conditions day to day.
The light in the ear is of the same strength as direct sunlight passing through the ear canal would be, so it is actually attempting to replicate otherwise natural conditions in averting an issue rather than introducing something entirely new and artificial.
I did not see a thorough description of how the sham was administered, and if you do not take care to do it exactly in the same manner you cant rule out other stimuli. A small thing such as taking out the ear plugs or removing the LED fiber optics from the ear plug is a completely different study.
Also, I really would question the measurement for the “natural amount of light” that would get in the ear via their measurements (skin tone/hair color/ear hair/differences in canal length/angle of sun radiation into the canal…etc), plus if it were completely valid in measurement, this light should be on for hours, say up to 16hrs even, not the (I think stated) 8-12minutes therapy.
I’m not really saying its not a possible valid way to stimulate the brain in some manner. I think however, it barely scratches the surface of what would be needed to show its valid, useful and beneficial. Even if everything was done well and correctly, its not proof of anything other than a certain amount of light stimulation can change the brain signal in the scanner, which is different from saying its treating anything. It is interesting, but just a tiny start. The lack of using other light levels or types of light also seems to me to show that they are interested only in their product, not explore whats happening, and I can just see it leading to some misleading statement like: “The only device proven to use x wavelength at the exact light levels needed to stimulate the brain”. The quick jump to promoting a hugely overpriced device for specific therapies, along with the researchers all having conflicting interests should make one hesitate.
I’m not sure if I read the description of the sham conditions in the paper itself or some other place, but it should be in the paper. They did claim it was exactly the same bar the light being switched off.
That is true, intensity will vary throughout the day and dependent on external factors like you mentioned. I agree that any ‘treatment’ length should be significantly longer than 8-12 minutes for significant effects, (although it wouldn’t necessarily have to be the full length of a day to have an effect, I believe traditional light therapy takes up to 3 hours, but is often 30-60 minutes). I think the time constraints may have been due to time in the scanner; fMRI can cost around $500 an hour. They just needed enough time to show a statistically significant effect, if they hadn’t found one then they may have redesigned a follow up study for longer exposure.
I agree, a lot more would need to be done to first replicate the effects and then follow up to see if there are any robust clinical consequences. I don’t actually believe that they used their product in the study, but fibre-optic cables instead. But I think they replicated the 7-8 lumen output in each ear but I’m not sure if they matched the spectral distribution. I would assume that it’s the short wavelength light which is causing any effect though anyway, a wavelength which is high in LED, and could actually be maximised by using non-white emitters.
I love this tread, especially: