Hey everyone, just wanted to share a project I’ve been working on: a complete P9 protocol reference guide. I tried to break down each protocol using a mix of my own experience, the manual, the broader P9 literature, and the wealth of knowledge people have shared on this forum. I think it should also work for the M1, but I do not have any hands on experience with the M1
@Bob I’d appreciate any feedback.
I am also working on a brainwave entrainment guide to the p9, but it still needs some work (and is much more subjective).ICES_P9_30_Protocol_Reference.pdf (25.2 KB)
2 Likes
Hey @MattK, that’s really cool. That will be really helpful for people, and I’m happy to help you with this project when you want my input.
The main thing to know is that the electrical circuit and firmware for the P9 is identical to the M1. The main differences are the internal coil and 9V battery for the P9. The P9 is more difficult for me to assemble and is physically larger than the M1, but otherwise they are functionally identical (see note), so your findings for the P9 should be directly applicable to the M1.
Note: there is one functional difference between the M1 and the P9 that is not obvious but can be important to some people: the 9V battery of the P9 has a greater capacity to deliver electrical current than the camcorder battery of the M1. Usually this does not matter using a single pair of coils. But if the electrical load is increased, such as with a 2x2 coil array or the use of more then one pair of coils using a cable splitter, the 9V battery of the P9 will deliver enough power to fully energize this additional coil load, whereas the camcorder battery can not quite deliver as much power for heavy electrical loads.
2 Likes
Thanks Bob! Did you have any feedback on the manual itself? I definitely took some liberties on suggested applications, but tried to keep it as objective as possible.
1 Like
I am actually slammed to the wall every second of every day for the next 6 weeks or so, not a free moment, so I will try to look at it when I can clear the time to do so, sorry.
1 Like
Absolutely! Definitely no rush. I appreciate all you do here in the forum
1 Like
Hi Matt,
Thanks for you good work. I hope Bob gets around to reviewing your excellent document and perhaps elaborates further with his insights and experience etc. His additional annotations would likely be extremely helpful in adding to your foundational work. I think the community really could benefit by such a document and thanks for your major contribution. Would you mind seeing if you can elaborate on any unique features the TMS protocols might offer beyond the corresponding constant frequency protocols. Please note too that there are many other excellent PMB devices other than Vilight as you cite.
Dr. Sheldon Lewkis, R.Psych
Neuropsychologist
Int QEEG Cert Board Diplomate
Dr. Lewkis — thank you, that means a lot coming from someone with your background. I’d love for Bob to weigh in when he is less busy; his annotations would make this far more valuable than what I could put together alone.
On your two questions:
TMS protocols vs. the matching constant-frequency protocol — this is a good one to dig into, because on the waveform level they’re essentially the same signal as 10 pps continuous. Dr. Dennis says as much in the manual: the scTMS protocols “have never been evaluated using ICES technology” and are included by user request. What’s actually distinct is the use paradigm rather than the pulse itself:
- The pre-set 30- and 60-minute timers package 10 pps into a discrete session structure, closer to how clinical rTMS is dosed than to continuous all-day wear.
- The “sub-threshold continuous” framing (scTMS) is an explicit acknowledgment that ICES can’t replicate rTMS field strength, and is instead exploring whether lower-intensity, longer-duration exposure at the same pulse rate might produce cortical effects through cumulative neuromodulation rather than suprathreshold depolarization.
- Placement is implicitly constrained to cortex, which changes the mental model even if the signal doesn’t change.
So: same waveform, different intended use. Whether the paradigm produces distinct clinical outcomes is unstudied — I’ll make that clearer in the next revision so readers don’t assume the TMS protocols are technically different from 10 pps continuous.
On the PBM references — good catch. I leaned on Vielight because it’s the PBM stack our practice uses, but that’s not a sufficient reason to single it out in a document meant for a broader audience. Coronet, Neuronic, Thor and others all offer comparable capabilities, and the comparison point about dedicated 40 Hz entrainment stands regardless of brand. I’ll generalize the language in the next revision.
Really appreciate both notes — exactly the kind of feedback that makes the document stronger.
Thanks again Matt for your good work. I think your goal in creating the document is really a worthy one.
It might be useful too to note that there really isn’t any solid bases for accepting 5Hz as a universal treatment for traumatic brain injury. It might indeed work, but this would be independent of sufficiently compelling theoretical or empirical reason at this time. Generally, in my opinion it is best to approach pEMF application for brain injury with an EEG with qualitative analysis and formulate pEMF entrainment from those results. Perhaps Bob, knows if the protocol he worked out works well for brain tissue as well as musculoskeletal. Otherwise, there is no very well established one frequency that I know of for traumatic brain injury application via pEMF.