5 ms·

Something about electrical brain stimulation freaks me out. That, along with ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). I suppose it's hypocritical of me to not fear su

Something about electrical brain stimulation freaks me out. That, along with ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). I suppose it's hypocritical of me to not fear substances such as caffeine, alcohol, or antidepressants, but the idea of sending current through an organ as sensitive as the brain makes me wary.

debacle 12y ago
Have you ever played with any electronics to the extent that you've shocked yourself? It's actually pretty innocuous for the most part. TDCS isn't using the kind of current that comes out of a wall outlet.
- irremediable 12y ago
  To be fair, when you shock yourself, I don't imagine you tend to pass current near your brain.
- etiam 12y ago
  For one thing, in the case of tDCS one is actively trying to penetrate the insulating protection of the skin. For another, nervous systems change in response to what happens to them, particularly when what happens is more extreme than the everyday state of affairs. I don't dispute anything of what you're saying in itself, but if you mean to imply that it's hard to go wrong with direct current stimulation to the brain because the currents are much smaller than what's needed to drive household appliances, I'm highly skeptical of that claim.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - debacle 12y ago
    You can kill yourself with a 9 volt battery. There's no reason not to be skeptical. And if you aren't careful with tdcs, you can burn yourself pretty badly.
    - backlava 12y ago
      How do you do that? Eat it?
      - nerfhammer 12y ago
        Put a big capacitor on it and you can make a taser
        amelius 12y ago
        You still need a way to step the voltage above 9 volts. A single capacitor doesn't cut it.
      - greensoap 12y ago
        http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html
- thret 12y ago
  There was an electric fence at the end of my street as a kid. My friends and I played with it quite a lot :) I was shocked with it dozens of times, we all were, and only once did it really hurt. I couldn't walk for a few hours. For some reason my left leg went numb and didn't feel right. Boys will be boys.
drcomputer 12y ago
I don't know if there is an absolute right or absolute wrong, an absolute better or an absolute worse for the effects and side effects of a substance or technique on the mind. Caffeine and alcohol have horrible side effects on my mind, and my body. I didn't realize for years, about the caffeine. I don't know about this kind of electrical stimulation. The fear that I wouldn't have the predictable kind of control over the growth and direction of my neural connections doesn't sound like something I want. I tend to think of these things in terms of trade-offs though. I personally do not think it is very intelligent to place control over a highly sophisticated organ in the hands (or brain) of another being, unless I am certain to trust that being in that they know what they are doing. Very generally, it just seems like allowing someone else to manipulate, shape, and mold my mind, without me having a choice over it. I don't know if that is paranoia, or a kind of 'survival of the mentally fittest'. I know that when I feel like it is highly probable that I have been duped into thinking a certain way because someone else thinks it better for me, and I find out that they intended to do this, there is a certain kind of rage that manifests in me, that is unlike any other. It begins with the assumption that they thought they were more intelligent than me. I've thankfully never been proven correct on this, but I tend to disconnect from people that don't have the ability to maintain a constant of mental equality throughout interaction. This is fairly tangential to the topic, but I think it's somewhat relevant in a broader context of the potential consequences of science poking at the brain, without understanding how the brain might fight back.
- johanzebin 12y ago
  That expressed my own attitude very well, thanks!
- Matumio 12y ago
  allowing someone else to manipulate, shape, and mold my mind, without me having a choice over it [...] duped into thinking a certain way because someone else thinks it better for me I remember a time when there was always somebody telling me what was good for me, making me write essays about things that didn't seem relevant, etc.; It lasted for years, and yes, it has shaped my mind.
  - 12y ago
lg 12y ago
thanks to the sodium-potassium pump you are already sending current through an organ as sensitive as the brain :)
duaneb 12y ago
ECT can be very therapeutic—yes, it induces brain seizures (which is the point), but it helped me a lot.
- stevenjohns 12y ago
  Please continue. Very interested.
  - tripzilch 12y ago
    Just in case you don't get an answer: ECT is in fact a standard medical/psychiatric treatment for certain types of psychiatric illnesses. It gets a bad rep because of the existence of involuntary treatments. That doesn't mean that there are people that consent to it, because it can be highly beneficial to specific types of psychiatric illnesses. As far as I've understood from a doctor friend that explained it to me, the patient is fully under narcosis and paralysed (otherwise the muscles will do all sorts of dangerous things), so they don't notice a thing, apart from probably waking up with a sore arm. This is because (I've been told) they leave one arm not paralysed for feedback and monitoring the process. See Wikipedia for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Sorry for the delay— ECT has been construed poorly in the media, typically as abusive towards patients (or as a threat). However, it's a legitimate technique that's been proven in clinical trials repeatedly. In popular lit, you can read about the experience of going through (and receiving help from) ECT in Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar; I've personally experienced a thorough ECT treatment, and her depiction of the relief (the titular bell jar imprisoning her/suffocating her is lifted to sweet relief). Medically, it's introducing small (but seizure-inducing) voltages to the brain. The patient is typically given a muscle relaxant and/or a sedative for the duration of the administration. They are tied down—not to stop the patient from resisting, but to stop them from hurting themselves during the administration through involuntary muscle movements. This is repeated, multiple times in a week, for several weeks until being able to discern either a positive effect or lack thereof. When I last researched, it was not entirely understood why this treatment provides such a fundamental relief. One theory (I tend to hold this one, as it just makes sense) is that some peoples' depression emerges from an overconnected brain, seeing patterns and associations that others do not (as easily). Under this model, the ECT severs some portion these connections and brings "quiet" to the depressed person's brain; again, this is similar to what I have personally observed in myself. I should note, the ECT is a serious treatment with long-term neurological effects. Short-term memory loss is common, with other complications being much more rare. It should not be taken lightly as it can cause perceptible, permanent changes to the person's emotions, memory, personality, and cognitive ability, with by far the largest symptom being impairment of short-term memory.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
Not hypocritical at all. We have literally centuries of data on caffeine, and less than a decade's worth on electrical brain stimulation. Generations have lived and died drinking coffee and tea. We know to multiple decimal places what a lifetime of regular caffeine intake in the form of coffee or tea will do to a person (not much, with the health benefits mildly outweighing any negatives) whereas no one has ever spent the bulk of their lifetime using this kind of brain stimulation regularly. It may very well be harmless or even long-term beneficial. Or not. The only way to really tell is to perform the experiment, and as usual the early adopters will be taking the risks for the rest of us.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Well said. What freaks me out about electrical brain stimulation is the brain's well-known capacity for adaptation in response to repeated stimuli. What happens when the brain gets used to the stimulation, or even comes to depend on it? It happens with caffeine, after all. Who's to say it can't happen with an exogenously generated electrical current? I'm excited for the possibilities here, but I'm in no hurry to be a guinea pig.
- jackschultz 12y ago
  Curious what you mean with the health benefits out weighing the negatives. Can you explain with sources?
  - tjradcliffe 12y ago
    Summary of coffee benefits here with links to some sources: http://theweek.com/article/index/244468/7-purported-health-benefits-of-drinking-coffee http://theweek.com/article/index/244468/7-purported-health-b... Most of the data is of the kind "people who drink moderate amounts of coffee show lower $BAD and/or higher $GOOD", so it isn't enormously compelling on the benefits (could easily be some confounding population characteristics despite attempts to get good controls) but is pretty compelling on the lack of harms. Tea data are similar but quite a bit weaker. Can't find any sources but WebMD is reputable and has a nice summary: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/tea-types-and-their-health-benefits http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/tea-types-and-their-healt... There is at least some biochemical justification for the belief that coffee and tea are good for us--they contain things that are thought to have positive effects--but the chemistry is complicated and not well-understood. And since humans are omnivorous hunter-gather-scavengers we are able to eat pretty much anything and still stay moderately healthy, so any strong claims relating diet and health are pretty close to Creationism: for humans to have a narrow, deep dietary optimum would have required our ancestors to be selected by processes that produced such a thing, and the life of omnivorous hunter-gather-scavengers is pretty much the opposite of that.

debacle 12y ago

Have you ever played with any electronics to the extent that you've shocked yourself? It's actually pretty innocuous for the most part. TDCS isn't using the kind of current that comes out of a wall outlet.

irremediable 12y ago
To be fair, when you shock yourself, I don't imagine you tend to pass current near your brain.
etiam 12y ago
For one thing, in the case of tDCS one is actively trying to penetrate the insulating protection of the skin. For another, nervous systems change in response to what happens to them, particularly when what happens is more extreme than the everyday state of affairs. I don't dispute anything of what you're saying in itself, but if you mean to imply that it's hard to go wrong with direct current stimulation to the brain because the currents are much smaller than what's needed to drive household appliances, I'm highly skeptical of that claim.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- debacle 12y ago
  You can kill yourself with a 9 volt battery. There's no reason not to be skeptical. And if you aren't careful with tdcs, you can burn yourself pretty badly.
  - backlava 12y ago
    How do you do that? Eat it?
    - nerfhammer 12y ago
      Put a big capacitor on it and you can make a taser
      - amelius 12y ago
        You still need a way to step the voltage above 9 volts. A single capacitor doesn't cut it.
    - greensoap 12y ago
      http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html
thret 12y ago
There was an electric fence at the end of my street as a kid. My friends and I played with it quite a lot :) I was shocked with it dozens of times, we all were, and only once did it really hurt. I couldn't walk for a few hours. For some reason my left leg went numb and didn't feel right. Boys will be boys.

drcomputer 12y ago

I don't know if there is an absolute right or absolute wrong, an absolute better or an absolute worse for the effects and side effects of a substance or technique on the mind. Caffeine and alcohol have horrible side effects on my mind, and my body. I didn't realize for years, about the caffeine. I don't know about this kind of electrical stimulation. The fear that I wouldn't have the predictable kind of control over the growth and direction of my neural connections doesn't sound like something I want. I tend to think of these things in terms of trade-offs though. I personally do not think it is very intelligent to place control over a highly sophisticated organ in the hands (or brain) of another being, unless I am certain to trust that being in that they know what they are doing. Very generally, it just seems like allowing someone else to manipulate, shape, and mold my mind, without me having a choice over it. I don't know if that is paranoia, or a kind of 'survival of the mentally fittest'. I know that when I feel like it is highly probable that I have been duped into thinking a certain way because someone else thinks it better for me, and I find out that they intended to do this, there is a certain kind of rage that manifests in me, that is unlike any other. It begins with the assumption that they thought they were more intelligent than me. I've thankfully never been proven correct on this, but I tend to disconnect from people that don't have the ability to maintain a constant of mental equality throughout interaction. This is fairly tangential to the topic, but I think it's somewhat relevant in a broader context of the potential consequences of science poking at the brain, without understanding how the brain might fight back.

johanzebin 12y ago
That expressed my own attitude very well, thanks!
Matumio 12y ago
allowing someone else to manipulate, shape, and mold my mind, without me having a choice over it [...] duped into thinking a certain way because someone else thinks it better for me I remember a time when there was always somebody telling me what was good for me, making me write essays about things that didn't seem relevant, etc.; It lasted for years, and yes, it has shaped my mind.
- 12y ago

lg 12y ago

thanks to the sodium-potassium pump you are already sending current through an organ as sensitive as the brain :)

duaneb 12y ago

ECT can be very therapeutic—yes, it induces brain seizures (which is the point), but it helped me a lot.

stevenjohns 12y ago
Please continue. Very interested.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  Just in case you don't get an answer: ECT is in fact a standard medical/psychiatric treatment for certain types of psychiatric illnesses. It gets a bad rep because of the existence of involuntary treatments. That doesn't mean that there are people that consent to it, because it can be highly beneficial to specific types of psychiatric illnesses. As far as I've understood from a doctor friend that explained it to me, the patient is fully under narcosis and paralysed (otherwise the muscles will do all sorts of dangerous things), so they don't notice a thing, apart from probably waking up with a sore arm. This is because (I've been told) they leave one arm not paralysed for feedback and monitoring the process. See Wikipedia for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy
- duaneb 12y ago
  Sorry for the delay— ECT has been construed poorly in the media, typically as abusive towards patients (or as a threat). However, it's a legitimate technique that's been proven in clinical trials repeatedly. In popular lit, you can read about the experience of going through (and receiving help from) ECT in Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar; I've personally experienced a thorough ECT treatment, and her depiction of the relief (the titular bell jar imprisoning her/suffocating her is lifted to sweet relief). Medically, it's introducing small (but seizure-inducing) voltages to the brain. The patient is typically given a muscle relaxant and/or a sedative for the duration of the administration. They are tied down—not to stop the patient from resisting, but to stop them from hurting themselves during the administration through involuntary muscle movements. This is repeated, multiple times in a week, for several weeks until being able to discern either a positive effect or lack thereof. When I last researched, it was not entirely understood why this treatment provides such a fundamental relief. One theory (I tend to hold this one, as it just makes sense) is that some peoples' depression emerges from an overconnected brain, seeing patterns and associations that others do not (as easily). Under this model, the ECT severs some portion these connections and brings "quiet" to the depressed person's brain; again, this is similar to what I have personally observed in myself. I should note, the ECT is a serious treatment with long-term neurological effects. Short-term memory loss is common, with other complications being much more rare. It should not be taken lightly as it can cause perceptible, permanent changes to the person's emotions, memory, personality, and cognitive ability, with by far the largest symptom being impairment of short-term memory.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

Not hypocritical at all. We have literally centuries of data on caffeine, and less than a decade's worth on electrical brain stimulation. Generations have lived and died drinking coffee and tea. We know to multiple decimal places what a lifetime of regular caffeine intake in the form of coffee or tea will do to a person (not much, with the health benefits mildly outweighing any negatives) whereas no one has ever spent the bulk of their lifetime using this kind of brain stimulation regularly. It may very well be harmless or even long-term beneficial. Or not. The only way to really tell is to perform the experiment, and as usual the early adopters will be taking the risks for the rest of us.

jonnathanson 12y ago
Well said. What freaks me out about electrical brain stimulation is the brain's well-known capacity for adaptation in response to repeated stimuli. What happens when the brain gets used to the stimulation, or even comes to depend on it? It happens with caffeine, after all. Who's to say it can't happen with an exogenously generated electrical current? I'm excited for the possibilities here, but I'm in no hurry to be a guinea pig.
jackschultz 12y ago
Curious what you mean with the health benefits out weighing the negatives. Can you explain with sources?
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  Summary of coffee benefits here with links to some sources: http://theweek.com/article/index/244468/7-purported-health-benefits-of-drinking-coffee http://theweek.com/article/index/244468/7-purported-health-b... Most of the data is of the kind "people who drink moderate amounts of coffee show lower $BAD and/or higher $GOOD", so it isn't enormously compelling on the benefits (could easily be some confounding population characteristics despite attempts to get good controls) but is pretty compelling on the lack of harms. Tea data are similar but quite a bit weaker. Can't find any sources but WebMD is reputable and has a nice summary: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/tea-types-and-their-health-benefits http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/tea-types-and-their-healt... There is at least some biochemical justification for the belief that coffee and tea are good for us--they contain things that are thought to have positive effects--but the chemistry is complicated and not well-understood. And since humans are omnivorous hunter-gather-scavengers we are able to eat pretty much anything and still stay moderately healthy, so any strong claims relating diet and health are pretty close to Creationism: for humans to have a narrow, deep dietary optimum would have required our ancestors to be selected by processes that produced such a thing, and the life of omnivorous hunter-gather-scavengers is pretty much the opposite of that.