[LINK] Learning enhancement using "transcranial direct current stimulation"

Alex_Altair

[LINK] Learning enhancement using "transcranial direct current stimulation" — LessWrong

11 [LINK] Learning enhancement using "transcranial direct current stimulation"

by Alex_Altair

26th Jan 2012

1 min read

11

Article here;

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/brainboosting.html

Recent research in Oxford and elsewhere has shown that one type of brain stimulation in particular, called transcranial direct current stimulation or TDCS, can be used to improve language and maths abilities, memory, problem solving, attention, even movement.

Critically, this is not just helping to restore function in those with impaired abilities. TDCS can be used to enhance healthy people’s mental capacities. Indeed, most of the research so far has been carried out in healthy adults.

The article goes on to discuss the ethics of the technique.

Personal Blog

11

New Comment

19 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:26 PM

[-][anonymous]15y190

Slightly better version here: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/brainboosting.html (includes the link to the actual paper and some others at the end).

One of the concerns they raise is that the required equipment is cheap to obtain or assemble yourself which could lead to unqualified people engaging in potentially dangerous self-experimentation. Soo, any LessWrongers willing to give it a try? ;)

[-]Alex_Altair15y00

Thanks! I changed it to that one.

[-]Incorrect15y40

There's a subreddit for this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/

[-]buybuydandavis15y20

Woohoo. Wire me up! Where are some plans for these contraptions?

[-]Morendil15y40

Kits allegedly coming soon. (via)

[-][anonymous]15y20

Here looks like a good place.

http://brmlab.cz/project/brain_hacking/tdcs

I'm going to be experimenting with them at the london hackspace so anyone from london is interested, give me a shout,

[-]staticIP15y00

That ones actually a bit dangerous. The current regulator is rated to go that low, so it's going to be unreliable. In this instance unreliable means brain lesions.

[-]buybuydandavis15y00

I got excited for a bit, but

http://brmlab.cz/project/brain_hacking

triggered a Google malware alarm in Chrome.

[-][anonymous]15y00

Odd. I'm pretty sure the guys there aren't malicious. I've met a couple of them. So I'd guess they got attacked at some point and got black listed.

[-]buybuydandavis15y00

Looks like they've cleared that out. I tried it again, and this time, no malware warning. Either that, or I'm already hacked.

[-]CronoDAS15y20

So how does this square with Algernon's Law? (That any simple change that enhances intelligence must be a net evolutionary disadvantage.)

For example, if the treatment makes it easier for a neuron to fire, it also increases the chances of a neuron firing when it's not "supposed" to (because of random noise or whatever).

[-]saturn15y110

Evolution hasn't really caught on to the fact that calories are really easy to obtain now, so there's probably some low-hanging fruit available by subverting the brain's energy-conserving mechanisms. (I don't know whether TDCS is doing that.)

[-]Anubhav15y00

Evolution hasn't really caught on to the fact that calories are really easy to obtain now, so there's probably some low-hanging fruit available by subverting the brain's energy-conserving mechanisms.

Related.

[-]Alex_Altair15y10

Also a macroscopic electric field might not be "simple" for evolution.

[-]Rhwawn15y00

The usual explanations for tDCS relating to the NMDA receptors would be simple for evolution, though.

[-]Alex_Altair15y00

Interesting. Where have you seen that explanation?

[-]Rhwawn15y00

The 2012 Clark paper on tDCS doubling learning to detect concealed snipers/bombs/objects.

[-]NancyLebovitz15y00

I'm not convinced that Algernon's Law is true in general. It might apply to improving intelligence above the currently available range, but it shouldn't apply to raising intelligence within the existing range.

[-]Douglas_Knight15y00

The example of math learning seemed pretty contrived to me. Here is an 8 year old article on transcranial stimulation for drawing. If nothing else, look at the drawings made by the journalist.

The Sydney work is about magnetic stimulation, while the Oxford work is electrical, but the effects sound pretty similar. Electrical techniques are cheaper, but harder to control (2d vs 3d). The drawing article appeared in the New York Times Magazine, but the current web page lacks the drawings.

Moderation Log