The simplicity of volitional versus non-volitional should help with the definition of the many therapies. Volitional means the patient makes cognitive efforts (volitional efforts) to effect the changes desired. In non-volitional, the patient does nothing but subject their brain to the inputs of the equipment. I find it odd that the non-volitional systems are defined as non-invasive. The strobing lights of EMDR, ROSHI and pROSHI are invading the normal senses of the brain. The microshocks of LENS are also invading the brain's normal environment.

LENS is a non-volitional neurotherapy. ROSHI and pROSHI are also non-volitional therapies. Neither are true neurofeedback or biofeedback. The practitioners of many of these non-volitional therapies are trying to co-opt the name neurofeedback so as to avoid the negative connotations associated with shock therapy and other therapies that try to modify the way the brain works.

Both clinics mentioned in your post use the non-volitional systems while The Center for Advanced Neurotherapy also does true neurofeedback.

I am a believer in the usefulness of true volitional neurotherapy but have many concerns about the others. LENS, ROSHI and pROSHI are only FDA exempted for use as relaxation enhancing therapies. They are not to be promoted as therapy for and medical condition.

The FDA has two different systems of allowing medical devices to be made, sold, and used. The FDA approval systems is where the manufacturer clinically tests the device to show that it is safe and effective at treating the medical condition studied. The other FDA system is exemption. This means the device maker has shown the FDA the device does not cause a risk of harm. The documentation required for this exemption is much simpler to complete. With this exemption, the device maker and those using it are limited to promoting it for treating non-medical conditions only.

The LENS and ROSHI systems have this exemption. Unfortunately, the adverse events records for these two devices has not been provided by the practitioners using these devices. The "exempt" FDA rating does not require the strict reporting of adverse events as it does for FDA APPROVED devices.

Carolyn Robertson is very good at name dropping. Many of her 'team' practice in distant locations and thus are only used in a consulting format.

I would caution you or anyone to go into these forms of therapy with your eyes open and your wallet closed. They can be huge financial drains before there have been enough sessions to determine if the therapy is working.

The value of developing better relaxation skills can be worthwhile but only if the cost is not adding additional stress.