Electrodoping with Transcranial Electrical Stimulation – Fact or Fiction?

-


By Kohitij Kar, PhD candidate
http://brainblogger.com/2013/01/23/electrodoping-with-transcranial-electrical-stimulation-fact-or-fiction/

 When most of us think of electricity and the brain together, we generally visualize what is known as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) with an image of a man’s face in gruesome pain. Thanks to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest for that! But, recently, there has been a revival of interest in a somewhat subdued version of ECT referred to as transcranial electric stimulation (tES) encompassing direct current (tDCS), alternating current (tACS) and random noise (tRNS) stimulation. One key difference between these methods and ECT is the intensity of current being used. Whereas tES techniques only use a few milliamperes of current, ECT often uses hundreds of milliamperes ensuring a much more vigorous manipulation of the brain state. tES also comes in at a low cost and with negligible discomfort or side effects. So the idea of someone just hooking their heads up to a battery and manipulating their brain activity without risking too much might just be a little more close to reality than we would expect.


 Besides its use in clinical therapy (depression, chronic pain, stroke recovery and what not; just search for “transcranial electric stimulation” in ClincialTrials.gov — we can also expand our imagination and think of some other fun applications. For instance, why not stimulate the pitcher of your base ball team for some extra speed in his pitches? Or, read up your text book and go to bed with your head hooked up to the stimulator, accelerating memory consolidation during sleep. How about training athletes and military personnel to develop faster reaction times and better visuomotor coordination by stimulation? How about stimulating the US senators before crucial meetings to enhance their critical thinking or planning capabilities? Recent experimental results do render some of these possibilities feasible. For instance, Lisa Marshall and colleagues has recently reported that tDCS during sleep improves declarative memory [1]. Colleen Dockery and colleagues have provided evidence towards enhancement of planning ability by tDCS [2]. Improvement of motor learning skills, reactions times, numerical capabilities and other tasks has also been reported (for review, see [3]).

 Everything so far seems just great! But there are also reasons why you should think twice before you subscribe to these tools. First, although there is a plethora of reports of behavioral effects of tES, the mechanisms of actions of tES is pretty much unknown and existing theories can be categorized as mere speculations. Second, if there are adverse chronic effects (which requires objective longitudinal studies); we probably are better off harnessing our natural brain power rather than messing it up with unknown electrical manipulations. Third, what if tES is nothing but a placebo? There isn’t a definitive answer to the last question yet. Hence it remains important for us to remain skeptical about the applications of tES. But at the same time, given the exciting possibilities, we should invest resources and encourage scientists to study the effects of external electric fields on our brains. If we play the cards right, we might just be a decade away from going to radio shack and ordering the $5 Brain Recharger Kit!
References

 1. Marshall L, Mölle M, Hallschmid M, & Born J (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep improves declarative memory. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 24 (44), 9985-92 PMID: 15525784
2. Dockery CA, Hueckel-Weng R, Birbaumer N, & Plewnia C (2009). Enhancement of planning ability by transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 29 (22), 7271-7 PMID: 19494149
3. Utz KS, Dimova V, Oppenländer K, & Kerkhoff G (2010). Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology–a review of current data and future implications. Neuropsychologia, 48 (10), 2789-810 PMID: 20542047

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The bioecological model

-
Image
An email sent to Kristin Jacobson, Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Medical School Dear Prof. Jacobson, I was just leafing through my University of Chicago Magazine this evening when I came across the article summarizing your new grant. I have to say I was amazed. Though the author tiptoed around the area under investigation, you are entering some very choppy waters. The attempt to identify the genetic and biological contributions to anti social behavior and cognition is normally considered taboo, since it inevitably ventures into racial variables. Though I am familiar with some work reported in press releases and abstracts of journals, as you can see from my weblog, most researchers, considering the downside, tend to avoid such studies, even with the best of intentions. I can't help be reminded of the unfortunate lesson of Chicago's Dr. Bruce Lahn, with whom you undoubtedly have discussed your research interests. As was noted several years ago in the Wall Stre
Read more

Brain imaging study suggests risk-taking behaviors can be contagious

-
Image
BY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ON APRIL 14, 2016  COGNITION Why do we sometimes decide to take risks and other times choose to play it safe? In a new study, Caltech researchers explored the neural mechanisms of one possible explanation: a contagion effect. The work is described in the March 21 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . In the study led by John O’Doherty, professor of psychology and director of the Caltech Brain Imaging Center, 24 volunteers repeatedly participated in three types of trials: a “Self” trial, in which the participants were asked to choose between taking a guaranteed $10 or making a risky gamble with a potentially higher payoff; an “Observe” trial, in which the participants observed the risk-taking behavior of a peer (in the trial, this meant a computer algorithm trained to behave like a peer), allowing the participants to learn how often the peer takes a risk; and a “Predict” trial, in which the part
Read more

Temperamental differences by race

-
Excerpted from: Solving The African IQ Conundrum : "Winning Personality" Masks Low Scores By J. Philippe Rushton VDare August 12, 2004 https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t148855/ Over a century ago, Sir Francis Galton initiated research into individual and race differences in intelligence and temperament. He was the first to propose the study of human twins and of selective breeding in animals to disentangle the effects of heredity and environment. And it was Galton—who spent several years exploring in what is now Namibia as a young man—who first contrasted the talkative impulsivity of Africans with the taciturn reserve of American Indians, and the placidity of the Chinese. Galton further noted that these temperament differences persisted irrespective of climate (from the frozen north through the torrid equator), and religion, language, or political system (whether self-ruled or governed by the Spanish, Portuguese, English or French). Anticipating later studies of tr
Read more