5 ms·

Pseudoscientific rubbish. The conclusion is entirely based on the assumption that there wouldn't have been any progress in the n-back task without brain stimula

Pseudoscientific rubbish. The conclusion is entirely based on the assumption that there wouldn't have been any progress in the n-back task without brain stimulation and that is 1. pure speculation, 2. implausible because practice usually makes you better at a task. Also: placebo. The general idea that we can "unlock" more brain power by simply applying electrical currents to the brain is utterly silly.

fny 12y ago
While this might be nonsense, the general idea isn't: some DARPA-funded projects have been playing around with tDCS for a while now with remarkable success.[0] [0]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/9-volt-nirvana/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/9-volt-nirvana/
- cpncrunch 12y ago
  Here is a review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154388/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154388/
gwern 12y ago
Eyeballing it, the pre-tDCS trend is relatively flat compared to the tDCS period. A t-test is wrong, of course, but I would be fairly surprised if a more appropriate analysis estimated a much smaller improvement. (I can't try anything because the Excel spreadsheet he provides only includes averages in ad hoc formatting, while I'd much prefer the raw per-round scores contained in his Brainworkshop's data/stats.txt file.) > The general idea that we can "unlock" more brain power by simply applying electrical currents to the brain is utterly silly. You might as well argue against the concept of 'stimulants' with that argument... The brain is an adaptation-executing organ which (among other things) seeks to conserve resources, which may not be the same set of trade-offs we would prefer in a modern environment.
jonathangough 12y ago
He states in the article that "considering that I have done the dual n back task (on and off) over two years before starting the tDCS experiment, my baseline was well-established."
- tmalsburg2 12y ago
  "on and off" versus regularly during the experiment. So the baseline was not well-established.

fny 12y ago

While this might be nonsense, the general idea isn't: some DARPA-funded projects have been playing around with tDCS for a while now with remarkable success.[0] [0]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/9-volt-nirvana/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/9-volt-nirvana/

cpncrunch 12y ago
Here is a review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154388/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154388/

gwern 12y ago

Eyeballing it, the pre-tDCS trend is relatively flat compared to the tDCS period. A t-test is wrong, of course, but I would be fairly surprised if a more appropriate analysis estimated a much smaller improvement. (I can't try anything because the Excel spreadsheet he provides only includes averages in ad hoc formatting, while I'd much prefer the raw per-round scores contained in his Brainworkshop's data/stats.txt file.) > The general idea that we can "unlock" more brain power by simply applying electrical currents to the brain is utterly silly. You might as well argue against the concept of 'stimulants' with that argument... The brain is an adaptation-executing organ which (among other things) seeks to conserve resources, which may not be the same set of trade-offs we would prefer in a modern environment.

jonathangough 12y ago

He states in the article that "considering that I have done the dual n back task (on and off) over two years before starting the tDCS experiment, my baseline was well-established."

tmalsburg2 12y ago
"on and off" versus regularly during the experiment. So the baseline was not well-established.