The Weird World of Brain Hacking | The Wall Street Journal


I had the pleasure of discussing tDCS with article-author Amy Dockser Marcus. She’s put together a very clear picture of where we’re at with DIY tDCS at the moment. I agree that Brent Williams is a great example of someone in the DIY community lighting the way towards safe and ethical home-use of tDCS.

I draw attention to this section of the article because it will be of special interest to regular readers. I find it very interesting to note that this letter addressed to “members of the DIY tDCS community” from concerned researchers happens to be under review for publication a few weeks prior to the FDA Workshop that will address the use of “non-invasive brain stimulation medical devices” (emphasis mine). Unless representatives from the likes of Focus, Thync or Halo Neuroscience show up to represent their devices, I think it very unlikely that the ‘DIY’ community will be represented (though Thync is certainly positioned apart from the DIY community there are obvious overlaps in interest). I signed up for the webcast. Assuming the webcast software actually works, I hope to observe a reasonable discussion between intelligent persons that finds nothing of note to be alarmed about.

Still, Dr. Hamilton believes some home users may not fully recognize that professional research in the field is largely done in people with brains “whose network has been altered and whose functions have been disturbed by or changed by injury.” Promising data gathered about neurostimulation on someone who has had a stroke, for instance, doesn’t necessarily apply to someone with “a normal intact system,” he says.

Researchers also haven’t studied possible long-term impacts of repeated use of tDCS by healthy people. There is some preliminary research raising potential concerns that when neurostimulation improves one brain function, there can be losses in other areas. Assessing the risks and benefits of the technology may differ depending on whether someone is healthy or ill.

Dr. Hamilton is one of a group of scientists and clinicians working with tDCS for medical applications who have written a letter aimed at members of the DIY tDCS community that raises some of their concerns. The letter is under review for publication by an academic journal.

I would only add that while Dr. Hamilton’s work with tDCS for the most part centers around aphasia (stroke) and pain, my sense of tDCS studies coming out of the science community is that it’s trending towards research with healthy individuals.

Source (in case you missed it above): The Weird World of Brain Hacking

Language and Memory Improvements following tDCS of Left Lateral Prefrontal Cortex | PLOS ONE


Using transcranial direct current stimulation, we tested whether stimulation of left lateral prefrontal cortex had discriminate effects on language and memory conditions that rely on executive-control (versus cases with minimal executive-control demands, even in the face of task difficulty). Participants were randomly assigned to receive Anodal, Cathodal, or Sham stimulation of left lateral prefrontal cortex while they (1) processed ambiguous and unambiguous sentences in a word-by-word self-paced reading task and (2) performed an n-back memory task that, on some trials, contained interference lure items reputed to require executive-control. Across both tasks, we parametrically manipulated executive-control demands and task difficulty. Our results revealed that the Anodal group outperformed the remaining groups on (1) the sentence processing conditions requiring executive-control, and (2) only the most complex n-back conditions, regardless of executive-control demands. Together, these findings add to the mounting evidence for the selective causal role of left lateral prefrontal cortex for executive-control tasks in the language domain. Moreover, we provide the first evidence suggesting that brain stimulation is a promising method to mitigate processing demands encountered during online sentence processing.

Source: PLOS ONE: Language and Memory Improvements following tDCS of Left Lateral Prefrontal Cortex

New ‘Vibes’ From Thync

[Update 20151104] Have asked via Twitter if there was additional (to their study PDF) science to verify these, well could you call them claims? Will update this post as information emerges.

 

https://twitter.com/jamiethync/status/662010028325543936

https://twitter.com/jamiethync/status/662137266727424000

https://twitter.com/jamiethync/status/661992842227818496

I haven’t seen any word of this on their site or Twitter, but it appears Thync is set to launch new ‘vibes’. It’s also possible that because I’m on their mailing list, I’m part of a marketing test. You’ll recall that a ‘vibe’ is a desired outcome from a setting on their hardware. Thync launched with the ‘Calm’ and ‘Energy’ vibe. The email announces the ‘Workout Vibe’, the ‘Zen Vibe’ and the ‘Holiday Vibe’.

thyncVibes20151102

@DIYtDCS
I would assume each Vibe represents a unique waveform? Was there additional science as well or based off previous study?

@DIYtDCS Yes all are distinct waveforms & rigoursly tested on 100+ volunteers/week. 15,000+ total vibes used by customers in Oct alone
— Jamie (@jamiethync) November 4, 2015

@DIYtDCS  Interesting… of course, the app tracks use! No doubt some fascinating data emerging, especially as new Vibes come online.

@DIYtDCS You got it! Neuromod research on new level. Industrial data leads to new insights/capabilities & improved tech across the board.

Positioning Electrodes

This instructional video demonstrates the correct way to measure and place electrodes. In a clinical setting, with a medical grade tDCS device (Soterix), a subject is measured for electrode placement on the primary motor cortex. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex region is also shown. This is the first time I’ve seen the video on Youtube (making it easy to share). Previously it could only be found here, where an associated pdf which includes illustrations is also made available.

 

A pragmatic analysis of the regulation of consumer tDCS devices in the U.S. | Anna Wexler

This is an incredibly well-researched paper. All the nuance of FDA regulation around tDCS and similar devices is made clear. I’ve been picking away at trying to understand this myself, but had become extremely frustrated by the complexity and opacity of FDA jargon and legalese. Anna has collected all the relevant facts and applied them very close to home citing specific devices and situations the DIY tDCS crowd will be familiar with. Anna Wexler is the author as well of The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals (gated) . She spoke to myself and at least a handful of other reddit.com/r/tDCS contributors for that paper. In both papers she lays out a very sensible approach to regulating tDCS, or rather, not regulating it. Stating that there is already a body of relevant law stemming from various government agencies (in the U.S.) that could be called upon to regulate tDCS device use as needed.

This paper contributes to the literature on the regulation of consumer brain stimulation devices in the USA by providing a fact-based analysis of the consumer tDCS market and relevant laws and regulations. In the first section, I present a short history of the DIY tDCS movement and the subsequent emergence of DTC devices. In the second and third sections, I outline the basics of FDA medical device regulation and discuss how the definition of a medical device—which focuses on the intended use of the device rather than its mechanism of action—is of paramount importance for discussions of consumer tDCS device regulation. I then discuss how both the FDA and the courts have understood the FDA’s jurisdiction over medical devices in cases where the meaning of ‘intended use’ has been challenged. In the fourth section, I analyse the only instance of tDCS regulatory action to date, in which the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) forced a firm to recall several hundred consumer tDCS devices. Although there exists a common perception that the FDA has not been involved with the regulation of consumer tDCS devices, the California case demonstrates that the CDPH’s actions were instigated by an FDA engineer. Finally, I discuss the multiple US authorities, other than the FDA, that can regulate consumer brain stimulation devices.


Marketing language from the websites of consumer tDCS devices available for purchase as of June 2015.
CONSUMER TDCS DEVICE MARKETING LANGUAGE
Brain Stimulator* https://thebrainstimulator.net/what-is-tdcs/ ‘tDCS allows you to unlock your brain’s true potential’
Cognitive Kit* http://www.cognitivekit.com/ ‘Charge your mind’
tdcs-kit http://www.tdcs-kit.com/ ‘Power your mind’
ApeX Type A* http://www.apexdevice.net/ ‘Be happier. Be focused. Be smarter’
Foc.us* http://www.foc.us/ ‘make your synapses fire faster’, ‘overclock your brain’, ‘take charge’
Thync* http://www.thync.com ‘quiet your mind’, ‘boost your workout’
PriorMind http://www.priormind.com ‘increase your attention span’ ‘tDCS has been widely used to treat depression…’
TCT* http://www.trans-cranial.com ‘when only the best in tDCS therapy will do’
Super Specific Devices* http://www.superspecificdevices.com ‘personal tDCS device’

FDA Public Workshop – Neurodiagnostics and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Medical Devices Workshop, November 19-20, 2015

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm458018.htm

The focus of the second day of the workshop will be non-invasive brain stimulation medical devices, which are medical devices that are intended to improve, affect, or otherwise modify the cognitive function of a normal individual (i.e., without a treatment objective) by means of non-invasive electrical or electromagnetic stimulation to the head. The purpose of this workshop is to obtain public input and feedback on scientific, clinical, and regulatory considerations associated with medical devices for assessing and influencing cognitive function.

We Wore Electrodes to Bed to Induce Lucid Dreaming | Motherboard

Oxley said a paper published in Nature last year, which showed lucid dreams could be induced through stimulating gamma waves in a sleeping person, inspired a lot of customers to try to use foc.us in the same way. So the foc.us team wrote a new program specifically designed to try to ellicit lucid dreams.

“A positive charge will excite a part of the brain and a negative current will sort of turn off that part of the brain,” Oxley said. “The higher function areas at the front of the brain are active during lucid dreams, so the idea is that if we excite that while people are dreaming, they’ll have a greater chance of having a lucid dream.”

Oxley said he uses the device nearly every night, and while it doesn’t always work, when it does it’s very exciting. Unfortunately, my experience was not quite so thrilling. Though the lucid dream program on the foc.us delivers a relatively low electrical current of 1.5 milliamps, it was too high for me. The electrodes immediately started to sting my skin and I had to take them off after about three seconds. So, I enlisted my less-sensitive coworkers to test it out, but the results were just as disappointing.

Source: We Wore Electrodes to Bed to Induce Lucid Dreaming | Motherboard

Society For Neuroscience 2015 Chicago October 17-21

sfn15An overwhelming amount of tDCS-related information is about to descend upon us.

Neuroscience 2015 will take place October 17-21 at McCormick Place in Chicago. Join more than 30,000 colleagues from more than 80 countries at the world’s largest marketplace of ideas and tools for global neuroscience.

Here’s a small sample of some of the tDCS-related presentations/abstracts that caught my eye. (Unfortunately I can’t link to my search results so I also scraped the page so you can see for yourself here.)

Our Results Suggest That The Human Brain Resembles A Flock Of Birds

Indirectly related to tDCS but a fascinating new paper attempts to understand how the frontal cortex is responsible for cognitive control.

“Surprisingly,” Bassett said, “our results suggest that the human brain resembles a flock of birds. The flock comes to a consensus about which way to fly based on how close the birds are to one another and in what formation. Birds that fly at specific places in the flock can drive changes in the flock’s direction, being leaders in a so-called multi-agent system.
—–
“We’re very interested in controlling brain networks with techniques like optogenetics, transcranial magnetic or direct-current stimulation, deep brain stimulation or even neurofeedback,” Bassett said, “but the problem has been that there is little theoretical basis to determine how these stimulations affect the dynamics of the whole brain. In most cases, stimulation is applied via trial and error. This research helps to build up an understanding of the impact of stimulation in one region on cognition as a whole.”

Future research will test whether “wiring” differences between people predict their performance on cognitive tasks. It will also underpin work on therapeutic and adaptive technologies that capitalize on brain networks’ unique advantages over their computerized counterparts.

Article: Penn, University of California and Army Research Lab Show How Brain’s Wiring Leads to Cognitive Control
Paper: Controllability of structural brain networks

Huge Flock of Starlings Caught on Film (Hereford, UK 2014)

tDCS And Mindfulness

At 20:40 Katie Witkiewitz begins discussing the use of tDCS as a tool for enhancing mindfulness training. Her work is mostly focused around addiction and recovery. She compares her own experience of using tDCS-assisted meditation to day 4 of a multi-day meditation retreat. They are using the anode F10 / cathode left shoulder (“Where’s Waldo” DARPA research) montage. There’s a shot of what she calls the ‘octa box’ which seems to be distributing current from a single ActivaDose device to 8 sets of electrodes for ‘group mindfulness training’ (but I could be wrong). Could tDCS enhance your meditation? Provide that extra bit of calming the chatter? She goes on to say that (including her own personal experience) the montage ‘inhibits verbal ability’ and that trying to lead a guided meditation while stimulating F-10 gave her ‘the worst headache’.

 

Can this electric helmet boost your brain power? | Daily Mail

We met Ana Maiques, the co-founder of Neuroelectrics, maker of StarStim, in our first podcast. It should be pointed out that StarStim is a research-grade tDCS/EEG device that includes a powerful suite of software. In fact it’s not available to the general public.

Spanish research student, Azahara De La Vega Fernandez (pictured with Brian) is investigating under psychology lecturer Nick Davies how brain stimulation can be used to improve sporting ability Photo: Alistair Heap

Spanish research student, Azahara De La Vega Fernandez (pictured with Brian) is investigating under psychology lecturer Nick Davies how brain stimulation can be used to improve sporting ability Photo: Alistair Heap

She invited me to throw ten darts before being brain-hacked, and ten darts after.
And, while the current was gently sizzling through me, she played me a tape in which a man calmly talked me into picturing how brilliantly I was going to throw those arrows.
There is no point undergoing tDCS if you’re not already mentally focused.
Davis compares it with a weightlifter taking steroids. ‘If he takes them without pumping iron, they won’t give him bigger muscles,’ he says.
He also summons the example of Andy Murray going back to his chair between games, and replaying in his mind the shots he has just played, as well as imagining himself walking up to the net as the eventual winner.
It’s called visualisation, and all modern sportsmen and women are encouraged to do it.
Davis thinks that tDCS could help them do it better, sharpening that mental imagery. That’s why he’s experimenting on people like me.
First I needed to put my thinking cap on. This is the StarStim, a rubber hat with electrodes dangling from it.
Made in Barcelona, it costs £7,000.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3251517/Can-electric-helmet-boost-brain-power.html

Mind over matter: Ultrarunner Dean Karnazes’s brain-training device | Sports Illustrated

Thync works by pulsing small electrical currents, no more than about 20 milliamps, through nerves on the head. A sticky strip of electrodes attaches to places where nerves run close to the skin above the right eyebrow, behind the ear, and on the back of the neck. A small triangular device connects above the eyebrow, and sends electrical pulses out through the electrode strip. According to Jamie Tyler, Thync’s CSO and other co-founder, the effect of pulsing currents along these nerves is to modulate norepinephrine production in the brainstem at the back of the head. The device has two main modes—called “vibes” in Thync-speak—calm and energy. The difference between these two is that energy increases the release of norepinephrine, increasing alertness, whereas calm decreases it.

Would you let someone zap your brain? Why ‘electronic brain stimulation’ is trending | LA Times

Despite thousands of studies, there remain many mysteries. Most studies involve extremely short experiments with few participants, and they often assess results after just a single session, using very specific tasks. That means results are not generally applicable to real-life situations or to all people. And nobody knows what the consequences might be of frequent use for long periods of time, which is how many people would like to use tDCS.

There is plenty of optimism that tDCS will eventually have real, even transformative applications. But that time does has not come. “At the moment, I don’t know about any protocol or device for which we could really say you could use for gaming or everyday tasks and it would improve performance and there would be no risks with it,” Nitsche says. “My advice would be to be cautious.”

Would you let someone zap your brain? Why ‘electronic brain stimulation’ is trending