Behind the Curtain: Exploring How Providers Are Using the Neuradiant 1070 in Their Practices

Behind the Curtain: Exploring How Providers Are Using the Neuradiant 1070 in Their Practices
Contributors
Nicole Greig
Nicole Greig
Clinical Integration Specialist
Jordan Hamlin
Consultant
Subscribe to newsletter

Photobiomodulation (PBM), commonly known as "light therapy," is a topic that has gained significant attention due to its promising and widespread applications. According to Google Trends, the search term "Photobiomodulation" has seen a threefold increase in interest over the past five years, reflecting growing curiosity and adoption of the technology across multiple fields.

Over two hundred providers use the Neuradiant 1070 in their practices to bolster their therapeutic efforts and outcomes. From neurofeedback providers, to neurologists and  physiotherapists, the Neuradiant 1070 continues to have a far-reaching impact on many clients and patients around the world. However, the clinical application of this device and PBM as a whole remains somewhat unclear.  What are the most commonly used protocols? Which client demographic uses the Neuradiant 1070 the most? What results are clients seeing with this device? To answer these questions, Neuronic conducted a Provider Research Study, interviewing  twelve providers from various fields on the application of the Neuradiant 1070 in their practice, and we have outlined the main findings below.

Disclaimer: While conducting this study, we asked providers about the populations they work with and the types of conditions they address. It is important to note that while clinicians may use terminology such as “conditions,” this language reflects their personal experiences and descriptions in clinical practice. As a company, we focus on the Neuradiant 1070’s ability to enhance cognitive function, support overall brain health, and promote wellness. The device is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any specific medical conditions. The findings presented here aim to provide insights into how the Neuradiant 1070 is used in clinical practice to support cognitive wellness and improve client well-being.

Key Findings From the Study

1. Most Common Populations Addressed

We asked our providers what populations they use the Neuradiant 1070 on. The top  three were:

  1. Dementia
  2. TBI, ADHD
  3. Concussion, anxiety, depression

Frequency Distribution of Conditions sorted by frequency
This bar chart illustrates the frequency of conditions, as reported by the participants, for which the Neuradiant 1070 device is utilized. Note: the “Other” category includes one vote for each of the following conditions: Ehler Danlos syndrome, Dysautonomic syndromes, chronic pain syndrome, chronic fatigue, and general mental health conditions.

2. Protocol Use

While many providers note the use of qEEGs for protocol development, many providers opt for using pre-set protocols for a global and plug-and-play approach. This is understandable in the context of clinical integration; our pre-set protocols range from 3-10 minutes and are pre-programmed with a specific pulse rate, time, and intensity. In our work with providers, many report that they opt for pre-set protocols while seeing clients in their practice, but provide a more tailored and longer clinical protocol when the client purchases a Neuradiant 1070 for at-home use. Throughout the interviews with providers, some offered feedback that providing general protocols for specific symptoms would be an asset to them.

frequency distribution of protocol types
This bar chart illustrates the usage of different protocol types among providers. Pre-set protocols were the most commonly used (11 instances), followed by clinical protocols (9 instances) and custom programs (6 instances). Data reflects survey responses from 12 participants.

3. Metrics Used to Assess Effectiveness

To track client progress, providers utilized various metrics, including:

  • qEEG 
  • Cognitive assessments (e.g., MOCA, CNS-Vital Signs)
  • Client-reported symptom improvement (feedback and questionnaires)
  • Biometric markers (ex. heart rate variability)

4. Number of Sessions to See Results

Providers often ask, “How long does it take for clients to see results?”  Results vary depending on the client’s individual symptoms and sensitivities. Providers responded to this study based on the average response time they have seen with their clients. Results were scaled based on how many times each provider sees the average client using the device per week. Most providers reported seeing clients 2-3 times a week, and the median time to see results was about five sessions or after around two weeks.

5. High Provider Satisfaction & Ease of Use

Providers reported strong confidence in using the Neuradiant 1070, with the majority rating themselves as "very comfortable" in administering sessions. The device's intuitive design and pre-set protocols allow for easy integration into existing approaches. However, these results are limited by the provider population, as all providers have been using the device from six months up to three years. A population of providers who have been using the device for less than six months may have different feedback.

Success Stories & Clinical Impact

Several providers shared compelling cases demonstrating the real-world benefits of the Neuradiant 1070:

  • A military veteran with cognitive impairment showed remarkable improvement within 10 days of using the Glow pre-set protocol.
  • A dementia client who previously struggled with verbal communication regained the ability to speak more fluently after sessions using the Focus protocol.
  • A client with chronic migraines and brain fog reported significant relief and improved clarity.
  • A TBI survivor experienced faster recovery and better executive function when using the device in conjunction with neurofeedback.

Limitations of this Study

This study’s reliance on self-reported data presents potential biases, as the subjective nature of the questionnaire may lead to recall inaccuracies. For example, when providers estimate the number of clients they see per week, their responses are likely rough approximations rather than precise figures. Despite this limitation, the data still offer a general understanding of usage patterns. Additionally, the sample consists exclusively of active Neuradiant 1070 users who are professionally connected to Neuronic, which may skew perceptions toward more favorable feedback. Moreover, since the research was conducted by Neuronic employees, there is a possibility of unintentional bias in data interpretation. Future studies should aim to include a more diverse range of stakeholders and incorporate objective outcome measures for a more balanced assessment.

Next Steps

This study underscores the growing role of tPBM in clinical practice. As more providers integrate the Neuradiant 1070, future research should explore:

  • The long-term impact of tPBM on brain health
  • Comparative studies between in-clinic vs. at-home usage
  • Standardized session protocols for specific populations
  • Geographical and cultural influences on adoption

Conclusion

Overall, the Neuradiant 1070 has shown promising results in a clinical setting for many reasons. The device is most popularly used in populations of clients with dementia, TBI, ADHD, anxiety, concussion and depression. Providers describe that their clients can see results as soon as around two weeks, as measured by various psychometric testing tools as well as qEEGs. By addressing provider feedback and continuing research, tPBM technology can further solidify its place in modern neurotherapy.