20 subjects – November, 2003

An Empirical Approach

Many instruments, currently commercialized, purport to entrain and balance the right and left hemispheres of the brain, while simultaneously lowering its alpha-theta rhythm. They achieve such states by electronic optical-acoustical stimulation of the cerebral cortex via the eyes and ears of the person using any kind of light and sound device commonly known as brain-machine or mind-machine. On the other hand, Alphalearning technology – BRAINWAVE I – is the only device that is said to facilitate and cause permanent whole brain synchrony entirely through light and sound stimulation, thus representing a major breakthrough in safe non invasive and effective treatment for many types of disorders – where it is scientifically proven to have brain imbalance between left-right electrical activities of the hemispheres – such as dyslexia.

The key point, of course, is whether this innovation delivers what it promises. That is, does the ALPHALEARNING technology and techniques, as its name suggests, increase such aspects of mental functioning as brain balance, brain-eyes coordination, alertness, mental clarity and improvement in reading speed? And if so, do these functions improve to a greater extent than they would by using any other type of light-sound stimuli device and associated techniques?

The present study was designed to determine whether or not DYSLEXIA observed parameters can be changed and maintained, considering the following aspects:

  • Brain balance and interhemispherical coherence;
  • Ability to cause brain state-shifts, necessary for different kinds of mental tasks – 3 to 7 Hz for memorizing, 7 to 10 Hz for information input, 10 to 14 for logical reasoning;
  • Ability to raise and maintain the reading speed in a higher level, necessary for normal learning through reading;
  • The extent to which ALPHALEARNING system is more effective than using any identical “placebo” program;
  • The “critical” psychological dimensions which the ALPHALEARNING system alters;
  • The effect of these “critical dimensions” on the overall personality of people who use ALPHALEARNING methodology;
  • The pattern of conscious responses to the ALPHALEARNING PROGRAM compared to that of a placebo program.

These objectives were addressed through an empirical, “double blind” experiment in which dyslexic patients believed they were evaluating a new “relaxation and concentration program”. Nevertheless, half the sample used ALPHALEARNING light and sound technology – Lotus Wavemeter and Beta wake programs – during 10 days, divided in two periods of five days per week (the “Experimental Group”), while the other half used a “placebo” light and sound program, identical in every aspect except for the absence of the ALPHALEARNING technology – the precise 610 nanoAngstrons wavelength beam of the optical device synchronized with sound in perfect tune, phase and frequency (the “Control Group”). The details of these methods are described in the following section.

This section discusses:

  • Sample;
  • Psychological Measurements;
  • Reading Speed Measurements;
  • EEG Measurements;
  • Analysis of the Data used in the study.

This study was done with a total number of twenty professionally diagnosed dyslexics, divided in two groups of ten participants. The group 1 (the “Experimental Group”) used ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY, while the group 2 (the “Control Group”) used a “placebo” program, identical in every aspect except for the absence of the ALPHALEARNING technology, during the same period and under the same conditions (All of the “patients” attended ten sessions of two hours each, for five consecutive days per week, during two consecutive weeks). Thus, any differences between the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO groups would be due primarily to the whole-brain balance technology present in the former, but lacking in the latter.

Sample Demographics
Table 1 is a breakdown of the sample by its demographic characteristics, considering gender, education degree, occupation and religious preference of the participants. Significantly, for the objectives of this study, the vast majority are students in which concentration and learning play such an important role. Moreover, these characteristics, for the most part, are equally represented in the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO groups, once again suggesting that any differences between them, after receiving their respective “relaxation and concentration” programs, could only be due to the ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY of brain balance present in one but not the other.

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the sample

N = 20N = 10N = 10
Elementary school45%50%40%
High school35%30%40%
Religious Preference

Psychological Measurements
A significant feature of this study is its measurement of the personality structure of participants in the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO groups both before and after practcing their “relaxation and concentration program” for ten days. This design permits us to determine which psychological dimensions, if any, are affected by the ALPHALEARNING technology to a greater extent than its PLACEBO counterpart.

Personality Measurement
Participants in both the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO groups completed a standardized psychological test before and after completing their programs. This instrument, the “16PF”, was developed by the renown psychologist, Dr. Raymond B. Cattell, and his associates at the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing in Champaign, Illinois.1 For the past forty years, it has been the instrument of preference in studies of normal personality functioning. In this regard, it has several advantages. First, it was developed scientifically rather than intuitively; secondly, it has different but parallel forms, thus permitting uncontaminated “before” and “after” measurements such as used in this study; third, it measures a broad spectrum of personality dimensions, including INTELLIGENCE, which may or may not be related to the ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY; and finally, a vast body of psychological literature on the 16PF over the past forty years has permitted the development of computer programs for actuarial analysis of its profile results, the significance of which will become clear later in this report.

The dimensions of personality measured by the 16PF are as follows:

  • Warmth
  • Intelligence
  • Emotional Stability
  • Dominance
  • Impulsivity
  • Conscientiousness
  • Boldness
  • Sensitivity
  • Skepticism
  • Creativity
  • Awareness
  • Insecurity
  • Liberality
  • Self-Sufficiency
  • Self-Discipline
  • Tension

At this point, it is sufficient to note that any or all of the psychological meaning of these dimensions could be the “critical factors” related to the impact of the ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY on its users.

Daily Program Diary
In addition to completing the 16PF before and after receiving their “relaxation and concentration program”, participants in the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO groups were asked to complete the same “Daily Program Diary” on each of the ten days of their participation in the study. For each day, this specially designed instrument measured the participants’:
– Reaction to the program on that occasion.
– Reaction to the program compared to the previous day.
Thus, this instrument measured conscious reactions to the ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO programs, while the 16PF measured their unconscious influence, if any, on the participants’ personality.

Reading Speed Measurements
Reading speed measurements done through timed reading of a set of paragraphs are conducted on all of the participants of both groups – ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO – before and after this study to determine the real reading speed as well as the degree of improvement, if it happens. Table 3 shows the results on reading speed discussed in the item “Findings” of this study.

EEG Measurements
EEG monitoring is done on all of the participants of both groups (ALPHALEARNING AND PLACEBO) using Brainwave I device, in order to check the parameters of every participant brain and provide the accurate light and sound stimuli for balance and control as well as to keep track of each participants progress along the program. This part of our study follows the procedures below:

  1. An EEG is recorded by attaching 4 small wires to the patient’s head with easily removable disposable tabs to view his brain’s activity on the computer screen. The recording is then evaluated to determine the weak and strong areas of the brain.
  2. Lights and earphones are used to input certain frequencies to synchronize the 4 main sections of the brain. The precise program used is based on the results of the first EEG.
  3. Biofeedback exercises are performed allowing the participant to hear and see his (her)own brain wave frequencies and left-right balance.
  4. A second EEG is recorded for comparison to the first EEG to measure the effect and results of the first session. This EEG is used to determine the next session settings for the light and sound training frequencies.

The above sequencing is done according to a standard 4 minutes EEG test devised by the Alphalearning Institute to check the following functions:

  1. Capacity to listen to new information and learn
  2. Capacity to relax
  3. Capacity to read and learn
  4. Capacity to memorize what has just been read
  5. Capacity to recall past information
  6. Capacity to use logical reasoning and take adequate decisions

Therefore, in only 4 minutes, 6 functions are checked on both sides, left and right = 12 data points x frequency and amplitude = 24 ways of evaluating the EEG and provide the best settings for brain balance through light-sound stimulation to correct any possible imbalance. The results of the EEG’s in this study are discussed in the item “Findings” and graphics are shown in appendix A.

The statistical findings of this study are presented under three headings:

  1. Individual Components Analysis;
  2. Profile Analysis; and
  3. daily Program Diary Analysis. The meaning of these will become clear when we discuss them under later headings.

Individual Component Analysis
Table 2 shows the average scores on the 16PF before and after receiving ALPHALEARNING and PLACEBO programs. These differences were analyzed to determine which, if any, are statistically significant. Briefly, “statistical significance”, in this research context, means that the difference between two average scores on the 16PF is LARGE and STABLE enough to occur by chance factors alone in 3 only 5 cases out of 100—i.e., the “.05 level of confidence” universally accepted as “significant” in most psychological research. These differences can be summarized as follows:


Alphalearning GroupPlacebo Group
Emotional Stability

Table 2
Psychological Impact of Alphalearning and Placebo Programs

Average 16 PF Scores
Alphalearning Group (N=10)

Alphalearning GroupPlacebo Group
Emotion. Stab5.86.9+1.1*

*NOTE: This difference is statistically significant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence previously described. The fact that SELF-DISCIPLINE increases in both groups (and, therefore, cancels each other out) is not surprising since the requirement to attend to the program five days for two weeks in itself could increase this dimension.

On the other hand, there are no other significant changes in the PLACEBO group, while INTELLIGENCE, EMOTIONAL STABILITY, and ALERTNESS improve markedly among ALPHALEARNING participants.

These findings strongly suggest that the ALPHALEARNING technology does what it claims to do: that is, it provides the human brain with balance and control, it works and it improves mental functioning.

Furthermore, a PLACEBO program —identical to the ALPHALEARNING in every aspect except for its psychophysical technology – has no such effect on its users and, in fact, has little if any effect at all.

Statistical Considerations about Reading Results

Table 3
Impact of Alphalearning and Placebo Programs On Reading Speed of participants

ParticipantsBeforeAfter Degree of Improvement
Alphalearning Group
Placebo Group

The numbers (table 3) leave no doubt efficacy of ALPHALEARNING program on all of users of this study, showing the amplitude of improvement degree varying from 348% to 1980% – a real result in any dyslexic participant.

On the other hand, the counterpart participants (Placebo Group) showed no significant change at all.

Once again, ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY made the real difference, simply because it caused its users to be brain balanced, totally free from any learning difficulty after the two weeks program.

EEG Statistical Analysis
The graphics shown in appendix A (at the end of this study) clearly show brain imbalance in all participants of both groups (20 subjects), as well as the effects after the conclusion of the program – a permanent change for better – on ALPHALEARNING participants` brain activities.

It is very important to emphasize how defined brain states shifts are in every ALPHALEARNING program user´s EEG – all of them have their brain under control as mental tasks varies during the final EEG evaluation.

The PLACEBO GROUP, however does not demonstrate any important change which would deserve a comment about improvement.

In that group , participants´ brains continue imbalanced after the conclusion of the program, what confirms the statement that dyslexia – no matter what the initial problem was, oxygen loss, umbilical cord around the neck or any other event during or right after the birth – has a common denominator: left-right brain imbalance and it can be repaired permanently with ALPHALEARNING TECHNOLOGY.

Profile Analysis
An obvious question, of course, is how do the psychological gains a person realizes from using ALPHALEARNING SYSTEM alter his or her total personality? Recent advances in computer technology have made possible actuarial analyses of 16PF results. That is, the profile for an individual or group can be interpreted in its totality, rather than as a collection of individual scores and the results are reported below:

Table 4
Overall Profile Changes

Direction of ChangePositiveNegativeTotal
Alphalearning Profile10010
Placebo Profile437

The data in Table 4 suggest that ALPHALEARNING program users, on the average, experienced more positive changes in personality than their PLACEBO counterparts. And, indeed, this is the case. By applying the appropriate test of statistical significance to this distribution, we find that the differences between the two groups are significant at and beyond the .05 level of confidence. Moreover, the actual dimensions summarized in Table 4 are as follows:

Table 5
Direction of Change

Alphalearning Placebo
Emotion Stab.ImaginationInsecurity
Less Conforming

Daily Program Diary
Participants were asked to complete a “Daily Diary” in order to keep track of their conscious reaction to the program. The results of their entries are shown in Table 6. These data show that the overwhelming difference between the PLACEBO and ALPHALEARNING groups was that the former was “agitated”, “restless”, while the latter had a more “peaceful” and “spiritual” experience.

Table 6
Verbatim Daily Diary Comments

Percent TotalAlphalearningPlacebo
Unusual Body/Visual Experience15%20%10%
Agitated/Restless/Mind Wandered10%10%10%
A Spiritual Experience10%20%
More Centered/Less Stressed15%20%10%
At Peace/Happy/Joyous5%10%
Alert/Aware/Less Tired10%10%10%
Quieted the Mind5%10%
Fell Asleep/Became Sleepy20%10%30%
Had Personal Realizations5%10%


The findings of this study are sufficiently clear to suggest several important conclusions about the ALPHALEARNING system. These are discussed below, first in general and then in terms of their marketing implications.

General Conclusions to begin with, ALPHALEARNING REALLY “works.” That is, it does what its name implies it does: daily usage seems to have a profound effect on the mental functioning of its user, increasing :





Conversely, a comparable group of people, exposed for the same period of time to a PLACEBO program, identical in every aspect except that it lacked the ALPHALEARNING technology for precise frequency and wave length stimuli — showed essentially no changes at all.

These psychological gains from the ALPHALEARNING, in turn, translate into increased judgment, greater creativity, a broader occupation outlook, and a generally more relaxed view of life—as indicated by an actuarial profile analysis of the data. Once again, the PLACEBO group showed no such modifications in their personalities. Instead, they found their program “agitating” and “annoying” causing their mind to wander and making them “restless.”

Marketing Implications

In conclusion, the ALPHALEARNING BRAIN TRAINING SYSTEM AND TECHNOLOGY definitely alters the personality of its users in essentially positive and life-enhancing ways. Therefore, although not “therapy” it is therapeutic. Its impact on EMOTIONAL STABILITY and MENTAL CLARITY, as noted earlier, an essential factor in the ego strength of normally functioning men and women, testifies to this fact.
These findings correspond nicely with the growing trend toward short-term and/or “self-help” psychotherapy. The traditional models of extended, one-on-one counseling are giving way to new and innovative technologies — including even computerized psychotherapy – and it might do well to position its product somewhere along that trend, as indicated below.

Mental Health Professionals

In such a marketing effort, the THE ALPHALEARNING METHODOLOGY should be kept in mind. That is, the results delivered are “therapeutic” without claiming to be therapy. Within that context, ALPHALEARNING could be offered to health professionals as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, counseling and psychotherapy.

The General Public

Among the general public, ALPHALEARNING could be positioned as…


This, or some similar positioning, would capitalize on the ALPHALEARNING`S capacity for enhancing the persons` generic improvement, as suggested by this study, while avoiding any claims as a replacement for professional treatment.


Neurofeedback and Dyslexia – day-to-day of a course
Case Study
Julia Lowes – The history of a dyslexic
James Douglas
Dr. H. J. H. Richards
About dyslexia

Scroll to Top