5 ms·
Did you read the paper or the title? tDCS was what was used, which is simply a low current meant to modulate firing rates at the cortical layer. There is NO i
by aznpwnzor 11y ago
Did you read the paper or the title?
tDCS was what was used, which is simply a low current meant to modulate firing rates at the cortical layer. There is NO interpretation of thought patterns and conversion into some modulatory electric field.
I do agree there are a lot of issues with clinical based trials especially ones with less concrete physiological measures, but the evidence for tDCS is certainly slowly stacking on.
- wbhart 11y agoI did read the posted press article and know what transcranial direct current stimulation is. I think you may not have an objection to what I wrote if I remove the words "thought patterns" and replace them with "brain activity" as used in the press release. Nonetheless, even this I find implausible. Why should I use the "brain activity" of a commercial pilot and not a meditating monk? Surely any actual information about flying a plane is totally absent from any such transfer. I see no plausible mechanism here.
- aznpwnzor 11y agoI'm not sure why the press release says that, but that is not t"DC"S is, and you're right there would be no reason to do that for any transcranial electrical stimulation protocol. But in the paper, it is pretty clear they do hd-tDCS. Spatially there may be an attempt to target more specifically areas that are activated during normal flight activity, but there is no attempt to "transfer activity" which has a huge temporal and amplitude implication.