5 ms·

Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors (2003)

67 points by pyinstallwoes 4y ago

hanafudafan 4y ago
Schizos were right again, that's dangerous.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  What's dangerous? That Schizos were right or that you were led to believe that those who are right are Schizos?
superkuh 4y ago
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  please, explain
- voldacar 4y ago
  Your comment doesn't add much value here. Which parts do you find implausible? Note that they are referring to CRT monitors, which do emit a strong electromagnetic field
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    The fact that if the effect were real, it would have been noticed long before now.
    - K0balt 4y ago
      It was noticed. That’s why there is a series of 50 patents or so around the basic principles of the idea dating back to the 1960s.
      - mattkrause 4y ago
        People have been mucking around with external electric fields to modulate neural activity for literally millennia! A Roman physician used electric fish to treat gout and headaches.
        CamperBob2 4y ago
        Becauser feeling a shock from an electric eel is EXACTLY like feeling EMF from a monitor.
        mattkrause 4y ago
        Obviously not (see numbers I crunched above) but.... a) The long and fascinating history of brain zapping only starts with fish. There were all kinds of cockamamie inventions in the 1700s-1900s, some of which were a lot of closer to this purported effect. There was also a lot of interest in using weak electric currents to improve sleep c. 1965-1975 ("electrosleep"). Anyway, I just thought it was a cool fact worth a mention. b) It was actually an Atlantic Torpedo (a ray), which is still stronger than this. Weakly electric fish might actually be in the ballpark: they only emit about a volt--and in freshwater.
  - danielheath 4y ago
    The order of magnitude is implausible. Nervous system manipulation via magnetic field has been demonstrated to work - using field strengths of 6+ Tesla from an electromagnet that is physically touching shaved skin close to the targeted region of the brain. Getting a signal through the 30-60cm gap between monitor and user - when field strength drops off by the cube of distance - from a 60w monitor (most of which is going to luminescent output) - is not merely implausible, it's a bad joke.
    - K0balt 4y ago
      That’s the whole resonant aspect of the patent. I think you must have missed that. It’s not about creating an impulse, it’s about synchronization of existing signals to create powerful stimulus.
      - jsiva 4y ago
        While resonance is possible, the resonating wave must still overcome the resistance (or whatever analagous "friction" like quantity for the system) in order for the amplitude of the wave. Given the loss from screen-to-skin propagation through air and the loss of the reflected component from air to skin transmission, it is highly unlikely that the wave can be sustained from the initial intensity of a screen.
      - mattkrause 4y ago
        You can do very surprising things to neuronal activity with weak electric fields (this is actually what I study). Some rough estimates (in brain): - 100 V/m: force almost any neuron to spike, essentially on command. Electroconvulsive therapy hits this strength or a bit less. - 20 V/m: force a neuron to spike, if it’s got the right shape and is properly aligned with the electric field. - 0.2-1 V/m: Alter the timing of spikes, so they occur sooner or later than they otherwise might. At this level, you are often competing with ongoing brain activity, so the net effect might be more or less rhythmic spiking. Can do this safely and non-invasively in humans. - 2-10 V/m: As above, but definitely win that competition so neurons tend to fire in sync with this field. Can kinda do this in awake humans, but it’s not comfortable. - 0.04 V/m: Likely upper bound on the CRT field in the brain. It’s probably even weaker.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    The fields here are still very weak. In the patent, they calculate the strength of the electric field produced in a few different scenarios. The largest value is 0.21 V/m at 70 com from the screen. It’s not clear to me if that’s at the skin (but in the air, where the subject’s head begins) or in it. Even assuming the stronger case, most of the induced current won’t flow into the brain: skin is so much more conductive that current applied to the head mostly shunts through the skin, and only about 20% enters the brain. (This is also the best case where the anode and cathode are both on the head; the path is much weirder with a mostly insulated person). Thus, the field strength in the brain is almost certainly much lower than 0.04 V/m. We know that fields of about 20 V/m in the brain (i.e., 500x stronger) can cause a neuron to fire, but even that’s under the best possible circumstances; You often need 40-100 V/m. Much weaker fields can alter the timing of spikes, making neurons fire a bit sooner or later than they otherwise might; I’ve shown that fields of 0.3 V/m do have an effect in monkeys. I’m loathe to say that a much smaller field has no effect whatsoever, but if so, it must be a very tiny one indeed.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Why take the time to comment?
csande17 4y ago
From the title, I was hoping this was going to be a very elaborate description of how computer monitors emit light in patterns your brain can recognize and think about.
- foobarbecue 4y ago
  Haha yes. I belive a set of symbols known as the "alphabet" can be projected from the screen onto the human retina using targeted electromagnetic transmissions, triggering thought processes. [citation needed]
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    While this indeed is the old-school way, and still remains occasionally useful for its unparalleled flexibility, these days the industry has mostly abandoned the more systematic ways of creating thought structures, and embraced the "explorer" / "zoo" approach. A number of high-complexity patterns of colors have been identified and catalogued, many of which are derived from the likeness of the natural world, while others are reminiscent of children's drawing. These, when projected onto the human retina, tend to trigger strong thoughts, even if not very sophisticated.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    I have actually seen this argument advanced in a paper! Couldn't decide if it was cute or maddening though....
mattkrause 4y ago
The link currently goes to a PubChem summary of the patent, which is not particularly helpful. Here’s the full-text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en
- mattkrause 4y ago
  Also there are some decent comments below the dead post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33859954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33859954
fsiefken 4y ago
Is this similar to way mindmachines are supposed to work? https://www.amazon.nl/Mega-Brain-Techniques-Growth-Expansion/dp/1493532014 https://www.amazon.nl/Mega-Brain-Techniques-Growth-Expansion... Recent research suggests 40 or 60 Hz light has an effect on perineuronal nets. Venturino, A.; Schulz, R.; De Jesus-Cortes, H.; Maes, M.E.; Nagy, B.; Reilly-Andujar, F.; Colombo, G.; Cubero, R.J.A.; Schoot Uiterkamp, F.E.; Bear, M.F.; et al. Microglia enable mature perineuronal nets disassembly upon anesthetic ketamine exposure or 60-Hz light entrainment in the healthy brain. Cell Rep. 2021, 36, 109313. https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc8284881 https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc8284881 Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359394227_Theta_and_Gamma_Oscillatory_Dynamics_in_Mouse_Models_of_Alzheimer's_Disease_A_Path_to_Prospective_Therapeutic_Intervention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359394227_Theta_and...
tbrownaw 4y ago
> in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance 1. As a kid, I remember going to some science museum that had a thing you could touch that could be either warm or cool or quickly switching between them, and that last setting felt surprisingly hot. Is that a similar effect? 2. Aren't flashing lights supposed to be bad for siezures? That's the eyes instead of the skin, but is the mechanism related somehow?
- missblit 4y ago
  Flashing lights can cause seizures yes. That's why you'll often see a warning at the start of more visually frenetic videogames. Famously an old Pokemon episode gave several hundred kids seizures. The wikipedia article contains the scene if you're feeling particularly brave :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon recommend not watching fullscreen and being ready to click away, as it is a bit intense -- I'm not epilectic but it makes me feel _weird_. I also remember back in the day learning OpenGL I accidentally wrote a program which would flash between my desktop and a solid color at 60hz. It was literally painful to look at in the few seconds it took to shut it down.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    My sister discovered she had photosensitive epilepsy when she passed out on the floor of a broadcasting school while doing editing work. The Pokémon incident is probably also why Nintendo applies filters to old emulated NES games during rapidly flashing segments including on the NES Classic (such as when Kirby uses the Crash ability in Kirby's Adventure). They're pretty serious about this issue. I don't particularly enjoy adulteration of my old favorites, but my sister is grateful for the feature.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > I remember going to some science museum that had a thing you could touch that could be either warm or cool or quickly switching between them, and that last setting felt surprisingly hot. Is that a similar effect? What you're describing is a variation of the thermal grill illusion -- in short, activating both heat and cold sensory receptors at the same time is perceived as extreme heat. As far as I'm aware, this phenomenon is specific to the temperature sense, and it has nothing to do with "resonance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grill_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grill_illusion
jsiva 4y ago
From a brief look at the citations, there doesn't seem to be any scientific basis behind it. The cited patents are either from the same inventor, describe optical manipulation of the nervous system or are related to systems where EM human exposure is relevant (e.g. MRI and X-ray machines). The one paper cited talks about a threshold voltage required to excite neurons but nothing about intensity levels relevant for this patent. I might be wrong as I didn't do an indepth search of the cited patents made by the same inventor.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
That is from about 20+ years ago and applies to CRTs (cathodic ray tubes). I'd doubt contemporary screens based on LCD, (O)LED, or similar produce comparable EM-fields.
mondayp 4y ago
Hulu was named after this patent’s inventor.

67 points by pyinstallwoes 4y ago

hanafudafan 4y ago

Schizos were right again, that's dangerous.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
What's dangerous? That Schizos were right or that you were led to believe that those who are right are Schizos?

superkuh 4y ago

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
please, explain
voldacar 4y ago
Your comment doesn't add much value here. Which parts do you find implausible? Note that they are referring to CRT monitors, which do emit a strong electromagnetic field
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  The fact that if the effect were real, it would have been noticed long before now.
  - K0balt 4y ago
    It was noticed. That’s why there is a series of 50 patents or so around the basic principles of the idea dating back to the 1960s.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      People have been mucking around with external electric fields to modulate neural activity for literally millennia! A Roman physician used electric fish to treat gout and headaches.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Becauser feeling a shock from an electric eel is EXACTLY like feeling EMF from a monitor.
        mattkrause 4y ago
        Obviously not (see numbers I crunched above) but.... a) The long and fascinating history of brain zapping only starts with fish. There were all kinds of cockamamie inventions in the 1700s-1900s, some of which were a lot of closer to this purported effect. There was also a lot of interest in using weak electric currents to improve sleep c. 1965-1975 ("electrosleep"). Anyway, I just thought it was a cool fact worth a mention. b) It was actually an Atlantic Torpedo (a ray), which is still stronger than this. Weakly electric fish might actually be in the ballpark: they only emit about a volt--and in freshwater.
- danielheath 4y ago
  The order of magnitude is implausible. Nervous system manipulation via magnetic field has been demonstrated to work - using field strengths of 6+ Tesla from an electromagnet that is physically touching shaved skin close to the targeted region of the brain. Getting a signal through the 30-60cm gap between monitor and user - when field strength drops off by the cube of distance - from a 60w monitor (most of which is going to luminescent output) - is not merely implausible, it's a bad joke.
  - K0balt 4y ago
    That’s the whole resonant aspect of the patent. I think you must have missed that. It’s not about creating an impulse, it’s about synchronization of existing signals to create powerful stimulus.
    - jsiva 4y ago
      While resonance is possible, the resonating wave must still overcome the resistance (or whatever analagous "friction" like quantity for the system) in order for the amplitude of the wave. Given the loss from screen-to-skin propagation through air and the loss of the reflected component from air to skin transmission, it is highly unlikely that the wave can be sustained from the initial intensity of a screen.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      You can do very surprising things to neuronal activity with weak electric fields (this is actually what I study). Some rough estimates (in brain): - 100 V/m: force almost any neuron to spike, essentially on command. Electroconvulsive therapy hits this strength or a bit less. - 20 V/m: force a neuron to spike, if it’s got the right shape and is properly aligned with the electric field. - 0.2-1 V/m: Alter the timing of spikes, so they occur sooner or later than they otherwise might. At this level, you are often competing with ongoing brain activity, so the net effect might be more or less rhythmic spiking. Can do this safely and non-invasively in humans. - 2-10 V/m: As above, but definitely win that competition so neurons tend to fire in sync with this field. Can kinda do this in awake humans, but it’s not comfortable. - 0.04 V/m: Likely upper bound on the CRT field in the brain. It’s probably even weaker.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  The fields here are still very weak. In the patent, they calculate the strength of the electric field produced in a few different scenarios. The largest value is 0.21 V/m at 70 com from the screen. It’s not clear to me if that’s at the skin (but in the air, where the subject’s head begins) or in it. Even assuming the stronger case, most of the induced current won’t flow into the brain: skin is so much more conductive that current applied to the head mostly shunts through the skin, and only about 20% enters the brain. (This is also the best case where the anode and cathode are both on the head; the path is much weirder with a mostly insulated person). Thus, the field strength in the brain is almost certainly much lower than 0.04 V/m. We know that fields of about 20 V/m in the brain (i.e., 500x stronger) can cause a neuron to fire, but even that’s under the best possible circumstances; You often need 40-100 V/m. Much weaker fields can alter the timing of spikes, making neurons fire a bit sooner or later than they otherwise might; I’ve shown that fields of 0.3 V/m do have an effect in monkeys. I’m loathe to say that a much smaller field has no effect whatsoever, but if so, it must be a very tiny one indeed.
pessimizer 4y ago
Why take the time to comment?

csande17 4y ago

From the title, I was hoping this was going to be a very elaborate description of how computer monitors emit light in patterns your brain can recognize and think about.

foobarbecue 4y ago
Haha yes. I belive a set of symbols known as the "alphabet" can be projected from the screen onto the human retina using targeted electromagnetic transmissions, triggering thought processes. [citation needed]
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  While this indeed is the old-school way, and still remains occasionally useful for its unparalleled flexibility, these days the industry has mostly abandoned the more systematic ways of creating thought structures, and embraced the "explorer" / "zoo" approach. A number of high-complexity patterns of colors have been identified and catalogued, many of which are derived from the likeness of the natural world, while others are reminiscent of children's drawing. These, when projected onto the human retina, tend to trigger strong thoughts, even if not very sophisticated.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  I have actually seen this argument advanced in a paper! Couldn't decide if it was cute or maddening though....

mattkrause 4y ago

The link currently goes to a PubChem summary of the patent, which is not particularly helpful. Here’s the full-text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en

mattkrause 4y ago
Also there are some decent comments below the dead post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33859954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33859954

fsiefken 4y ago

Is this similar to way mindmachines are supposed to work? https://www.amazon.nl/Mega-Brain-Techniques-Growth-Expansion/dp/1493532014 https://www.amazon.nl/Mega-Brain-Techniques-Growth-Expansion... Recent research suggests 40 or 60 Hz light has an effect on perineuronal nets. Venturino, A.; Schulz, R.; De Jesus-Cortes, H.; Maes, M.E.; Nagy, B.; Reilly-Andujar, F.; Colombo, G.; Cubero, R.J.A.; Schoot Uiterkamp, F.E.; Bear, M.F.; et al. Microglia enable mature perineuronal nets disassembly upon anesthetic ketamine exposure or 60-Hz light entrainment in the healthy brain. Cell Rep. 2021, 36, 109313. https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc8284881 https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc8284881 Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359394227_Theta_and_Gamma_Oscillatory_Dynamics_in_Mouse_Models_of_Alzheimer's_Disease_A_Path_to_Prospective_Therapeutic_Intervention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359394227_Theta_and...

tbrownaw 4y ago

> in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance 1. As a kid, I remember going to some science museum that had a thing you could touch that could be either warm or cool or quickly switching between them, and that last setting felt surprisingly hot. Is that a similar effect? 2. Aren't flashing lights supposed to be bad for siezures? That's the eyes instead of the skin, but is the mechanism related somehow?

missblit 4y ago
Flashing lights can cause seizures yes. That's why you'll often see a warning at the start of more visually frenetic videogames. Famously an old Pokemon episode gave several hundred kids seizures. The wikipedia article contains the scene if you're feeling particularly brave :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon recommend not watching fullscreen and being ready to click away, as it is a bit intense -- I'm not epilectic but it makes me feel _weird_. I also remember back in the day learning OpenGL I accidentally wrote a program which would flash between my desktop and a solid color at 60hz. It was literally painful to look at in the few seconds it took to shut it down.
- bitwize 4y ago
  My sister discovered she had photosensitive epilepsy when she passed out on the floor of a broadcasting school while doing editing work. The Pokémon incident is probably also why Nintendo applies filters to old emulated NES games during rapidly flashing segments including on the NES Classic (such as when Kirby uses the Crash ability in Kirby's Adventure). They're pretty serious about this issue. I don't particularly enjoy adulteration of my old favorites, but my sister is grateful for the feature.
duskwuff 4y ago
> I remember going to some science museum that had a thing you could touch that could be either warm or cool or quickly switching between them, and that last setting felt surprisingly hot. Is that a similar effect? What you're describing is a variation of the thermal grill illusion -- in short, activating both heat and cold sensory receptors at the same time is perceived as extreme heat. As far as I'm aware, this phenomenon is specific to the temperature sense, and it has nothing to do with "resonance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grill_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grill_illusion

jsiva 4y ago

From a brief look at the citations, there doesn't seem to be any scientific basis behind it. The cited patents are either from the same inventor, describe optical manipulation of the nervous system or are related to systems where EM human exposure is relevant (e.g. MRI and X-ray machines). The one paper cited talks about a threshold voltage required to excite neurons but nothing about intensity levels relevant for this patent. I might be wrong as I didn't do an indepth search of the cited patents made by the same inventor.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

That is from about 20+ years ago and applies to CRTs (cathodic ray tubes). I'd doubt contemporary screens based on LCD, (O)LED, or similar produce comparable EM-fields.

mondayp 4y ago

Hulu was named after this patent’s inventor.