Scientists Overclock People's Brains 314
arshadk writes with this excerpt from the BBC about researchers at Oxford University who found that inducing a small current in a subject's parietal lobe boosted their capacity for numerical learning:
"The current could not be felt, and had no measurable effect on other brain functions. As it was turned on, the volunteers tried to learn a puzzle which involved substituting numbers for symbols. Those given the current from right to left across the parietal lobe did significantly better when given, compared to those who were given no electrical stimulation. The direction of the current was important — those given stimulation running in the opposite direction, left to right, did markedly worse at these puzzles than those given no current, with their ability matching that of an average six-year-old. The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted. There was no wider effect on general maths ability in either group, just on the ability to complete the puzzles learned as the current was applied."
sweet !! (Score:5, Funny)
K... I just cut the cord off a lamp... somerone talk me through this O.O
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Working with AC may be problematic... Are you comfortable only learning something for 1/120th of a second at a time?
Re:sweet !! (Score:5, Funny)
hmmm... maybe I should just suck on a 9 volt battery while I am studying :/
Re:sweet !! (Score:4, Funny)
Luckily for you there is two flavors available: Duracell and Energizer!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if they're dumber, will they realize it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
K... I just cut the cord off a lamp... somerone talk me through this O.O
You don't need a power cord, just a bucket of caffeine.
Coffee, overclocking brains for 1,000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad coffee taste like cat piss,
Re:sweet !! (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know what cat piss tastes like?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cofee?
That must be some sort of coffee knock-off. Sort of like Mike shoes. No wonder you thought it tasted horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad coffee taste like cat piss,
I find it interesting that cat piss is a taste you can reference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea, but you have just taken the first step to fighting Bonus Eruptus.
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Made-up_words#Bonus_Eruptus [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
K... I just cut the cord off a lamp... somerone talk me through this O.O
You need to make sure that you're using a DC, not an AC lamp... TFA said that the direction of the current matters! If it's a DC lamp, make sure you've cut the cord past the rectifier. Then locate the ground and positive wires. Stick the positive in your left eye, making sure not to damage the eyeball, you need to carefully squeeze it in between the eyeball and the eyelid. Might need some good lubricant there. Then stick the ground similarly in your right eye. The eyes the easiest way to reach the brain, se
Re:sweet !! (Score:4, Funny)
This reminds me of that time you tried to drill a hole in your head....
Re:sweet !! (Score:4, Funny)
This reminds me of that time you tried to drill a hole in your head....
That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
K... I just cut the cord off a lamp... somerone talk me through this O.O
DISCLAIMER: I've run tDCS experiments in an academic setting before. The info provided below is merely for speculative/educational purposes, and if someone fries their brain it's not my fault.
It's actually surprising how simple the setup for a tDCS experiment is. All you need are some sponge elecrodes, some saline to soak them in, and a way to deliver a constant current (say, 1 mA). Sponge electrodes can be purchased online [google.com], or they could potentially be made at home. I'm not sure what size electrode they us
Re:sweet !! (Score:5, Informative)
As an Englishman I may be biased, but I think the BBC counts as a major news company.
Uhhhh.... WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)
those given stimulation running in the opposite direction, left to right, did markedly worse at these puzzles than those given no current, with their ability matching that of an average six-year-old ... The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted.
What about the other sides, were the negative effects persistant? Did you just create a group of idiots? Is this legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Oldnews (Score:5, Informative)
It's not really new and revolutionary, it's just that the previous studies haven't been able to be worded as "OMG BRAINOVERKLOCKING!" and thus haven't generated the same interest.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/direct-current-stimulation-more-than.html [nextbigfuture.com]
Re:Oldnews (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhh.... WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
The effect seemed to influence the learning process... IE when the current is applied in the correct direction the learning process takes place very quickly and when in the opposite direction it takes place very slowly. The subjects retested later showed they retained the learned skill, not the *ability* to learn that was afforded by the electrical stimulation.
Of course, lacking any such mental enhancement my interpretation of this may be totally wrong.
Associative area (Score:3, Interesting)
Parietal arae are associative area (they don't directly process sense, they do very high-order associate/combination/processing).
With lots of broad simplification : By applying a so low current, nothing dirrectly happens in the brain. Only one side gets a slightly more positive potential, the other slightly more negative compared to the normal potential in a "normal" brain. No impulse are caused per se. So no spasms, no feeling, no whatever. But the slighlty altered electric potential can make neurons slig
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uhhhh.... WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
The english-speaking participants then replied "Wakarimasen"?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You should have quoted the next sentence, too:
There was no wider effect on general maths ability in either group, just on the ability to complete the puzzles learned as the current was applied
i.e. nobody was made dumber (or smarter), it only influenced the learning process while the current was active.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the other sides, were the negative effects persistant? Did you just create a group of idiots? Is this legal?
The sense I got from the articles, as well as the last sentence of the posting blurb, is that the increased or decreased function was with regard to the particular problem(s) that they were attempting to solve while the current was being applied, not to their general capacity to solve math problems.
It does lead me to wonder, though, how quickly we'll see some entrepreneur out for a quick buck to turn out a "thinking cap" that has the electronics to provide the proper stimulation to the parietal area and mar
Stupid is as stupid does.. (Score:3, Funny)
pretty sure that people who offered to let scientists run current through their brains as part of a test to see how it affects learning aren't Nobel prize winners to begin with....
Re: (Score:2)
What about the other sides, were the negative effects persistant? Did you just create a group of idiots? Is this legal?
If you had read the next couple sentences you would have known that it only persisted for the puzzles they attempted to learn.
In other words, they created a bunch of people who were very good at those particular puzzles, and a bunch of people who were very bad at them. It did not affect their overall abilities at all.
Re: (Score:2)
those given stimulation running in the opposite direction, left to right, did markedly worse at these puzzles than those given no current, with their ability matching that of an average six-year-old ... The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted.
What about the other sides, were the negative effects persistant? Did you just create a group of idiots? Is this legal?
"When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted. There was no wider effect on general maths ability in either group, just on the ability to complete the puzzles learned as the current was applied."
It only applies to the skill learned at that time but, yes, presumably they will permanently suck at that skill. And, yes, they might have the right to sue since their brains were potentially permanently damaged.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I interpret this terse language is that the stuff they learned (or didn't) persisted, not continued ability (or inability) to learn!
Yes, it would be problematic to permanently impair somebody's ability to learn by the proximity to electricity, though that might explain lots of recent politics...
Re: (Score:2)
Right... but I don't see your point... I know it didn't make them incredibly stupid drooling zombies or anything like that - but their ability to learn was affected? What if they started a new job soon - wouldn't it be nice to be the quick learner you have been throughout all your life and not have been screwed over by a scientific test?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says that the positive effects from the current retained for 6 months. They didn't mention whether the negative ones did or not. Possibly just left that part out...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. They probably waived liability to be in the test to begin with.
2. It sounds like the alteration in learning ability is temporary, but the ability to recall what was learned in that time is lasting.
3. How long before we have "electrify your learning" helmets, or does this process require opening the skull?
Re: (Score:2)
This appears to be affecting learning, not intellect. They learned better while the current was applied, and therefore had access to the learned knowledge in the future. Those with the current applied in the other direction didn't learn as much, so had no benefits later on. It doesn't say, but I'd be completely unsurprised if they did no differently, or perhaps slightly worse, than the control group, since it would be like they were doing it for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Next big thing, peddling 9V batteries to undergrads the week before midterms/finals.
So basically... (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically we're FPGAs?
Overclocking? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some say you see a white light, probably high intensity LED arrays... you could say it's the WLOD. Sorry, I'm too excited about the possibilities of three 9v batteries, some copper leads to a skin-patch connector, and my sweet, sweet new high score on Puyo Pop! I'll be getting 10 simultaneous Puyos fo sho!!1! Or, a badly burnt section of hairless skin on the back of my head... :( Wait, was it negative lead on the left, or right hemisphere?
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that some get the WLOD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But I have accidentally OC'ed my PC and gotten a BSOD. What happens to humans when you do that?
You start agreeing with Rush Limbaugh / Shawn Hannity / Al Gore / Bill Maher. (Take your pick, according to your personal preference, and whom you wish to demonize...)
Re:Overclocking? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cut one of the plugs from the power supply and run a current from right to left through the CPU?
Re: (Score:2)
To hell with (blue) people! - Unless they're suffocating - then help'em. - Mitch Hedberg
My old boss used to do this too...no biggie. (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when I worked as a mechanic, the guy that owned the place and a buddy of his used to bring cars into the shop after hours, snort up a line of blow, and go to town. I once watched them pull a motor out of a Honda Civic in 15 minutes, surgeon style (one guy giving and taking tools/nuts/bolts, one guy using the tools to remove said nuts/bolts).
No exaggeration. 15 minutes. It transcended bitchin'.
Re:My old boss used to do this too...no biggie. (Score:5, Funny)
15 minutes for a Honda Civic? What is so hard about cutting a couple of zip-ties?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
er...
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it happen at race tracks, and other event. 15 minutes require coordination and skill, but it's not unheard of.
I can put a computer together in under 5 minutes. Which seems fast to put who don't do it regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it happen at race tracks, and other event. 15 minutes require coordination and skill, but it's not unheard of.
yeah, but on race tracks they have more than two people working on the car at a time :p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That jeep was specially prepared for that demonstration.
The "engine/transmission" unit must have a self contained fuel tank, battery, and coolant reservoir (radiator) and some sort of quick release engine mounts. There were no fuel lines and while one guy dropped the radiator in just before the hood went on, he didn't connect up any coolant lines. It was probably a 2-wheel drive jeep, to eliminate connecting the front differential. There must have been some sort of quick disconnect on the drive shaft U-Jo
Re:My old boss used to do this too...no biggie. (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a Top Gear episode where they discovered that changing out an engine of a car took less time than a group of women getting ready to go out for the evening.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I once watched them pull a motor out of a Honda Civic in 15 minutes, surgeon style (one guy giving and taking tools/nuts/bolts, one guy using the tools to remove said nuts/bolts).
No exaggeration. 15 minutes. It transcended bitchin'.
Aside from the illegal drugs in your story, did you ever think that maybe what happens in surgery is just the most efficient method of doing things? When you don't need to fumble for your instruments, you generally can do things more than at 2x the speed thanks to not having to switch your focus from your job.
If all you remove and install a given engine a few times, you get to the point where you know all the steps and know all the tools that you'll need. Even better if the helper knows the steps too. This
so many questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Any observation or correlation to right-brained, i.e. left-handedness?
How did the subjects perform with a slightly higher current?
And when they cranked it to 11?
Re: (Score:2)
Overclocking vs. Bandwidth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. In fact, it's neither.
The more I read about neurology, them more I hate the computer/brain comparison.
Love the journal name... (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome pun.
I'm game. Maybe. (Score:2)
I remember experimenting with pulsed currents to generate phosphenes after reading a related SciAm article sometime in the 1980's. Set up a simple 555 pulse generator, use cotton pads with saline as contacts on your temples, and you can get some pretty cool light shows before it starts to tickle too much.
If this really is cutaneous stimulation, I'm perfectly comfortable building small current-limited supplies, and coming up with something that'll make good contact. I'm a little nervous about applying prol
Oh, I get it now! (Score:2)
That's why the diode [xkcd.org] worked!
Conditioning. (Score:2)
If the effect was only with the puzzles learned when the current was applied this sounds like plain ol' conditioning and the "over clock" comment isn't even slightly related (wow, bad science reporting. Who would guess it?).
On the other hand there are effects I can vaguely re-call from my abnormal psych class where one hemisphere of the parietal robe is inhibitory and the other excitatory, and disrupting this balance can change the resulting behaviour (one example I have in my notebook is that asymmetry in
Re: (Score:2)
Performance Enhancing Devices (Score:2)
Pretty soon the Chess Federation and other intellectual competitions will have to start testing people for brain tampering.
Awesome! (Score:2)
Caffeine (Score:2)
But when I first read the title, my knee-jerk reaction was: oh, so they discovered caffeine?
Fiendish (Score:2)
Fu Manchu: I had no idea that mere domestic power could be so stimulating.
Statistics weak (Score:2)
If you read the work carefully, the smallest p-value for a stimulation-associated change is p = .03. That means there's a 1-in-30 chance that random noise in their results just happened to show an effect as strong as they actually observed. I commend the authors for being upfront with their p values; thanks for reporting them.
Without being a total naysayer, I'd still be cautious about swallowing these results wholeheartedly before independent confirmation. I don't suspect there was any experimental shena
obligatory (Score:2)
I love that this electrifying study was published in *Current Biology*.
Opposite direction? (Score:3)
So pushing the current from right to left improved mathematical learning, while the opposite direction hindered it. Is there anything that would be improved by the left to right current? Is this whole phenomenon an example of brain lateralization? This little wikipedia excerpt on lateralization of brain function [wikipedia.org] is interesting in this light:
Linear reasoning and language functions such as grammar and vocabulary often are lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain. Dyscalculia is a neurological syndrome associated with damage to the left temporo-parietal junction. This syndrome is associated with poor numeric manipulation, poor mental arithmetic skill, and the inability to either understand or apply mathematical concepts.
In contrast, prosodic language functions, such as intonation and accentuation, often are lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain. The processing of visual and audiological stimuli, spatial manipulation, facial perception, and artistic ability seem to be functions of the right hemisphere.
There is some evidence that the right hemisphere is more involved in processing novel situations, while the left hemisphere is most involved when routine or well rehearsed processing is called for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oblg: You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.popeilfamilystore.com/egg.html [popeilfamilystore.com]
Re: (Score:2)
yes but do your really want to crack open your own skull just so I can have a faster train of thought?
Re: (Score:2)
regarding the arti
Ridiculously Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And how, pray tell, do we learn more without screwing around in the first place?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"stop trying to improve on what you have. just use it, and take care of it" ??? Are you serious?
I am really glad that nature, science, business, art, linguistics, etc. -- generally disagrees with your harmful advice. Thankfully, we have selfish genes. And these genes take risks. Because risk-taking is the natural path to growth, learning, innovation, etc.
Life is not an exercise in conservation! Human nature seeks constant improvement. Humans are risk takers, thankfully. You only have one life to liv
Re:you can do this with drugs too (Score:5, Informative)
Which drugs? Plenty of drugs taken in moderation can be sustained throughout a natural lifespan without damage. Very few drugs, especially those used longer than the last few generations, "burn out neurons" or cause any neuropathy of any kind, at active doses that aren't toxic. Alcohol is an exception. But heroin is not. All drugs temporarily "lower the potential" of neurons or raise them: otherwise they'd have no effect whatsoever. But so does eating too much food (or not enough), or habitual running, or having sex.
Blanket statements about drugs are rarely meaningful enough to take as useful advice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you can do this with drugs too (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't improve upon the performance of your brain and your body without longterm tradeoffs
i hate that kind of defeatist, "nature/god knows best" attitude. everything you have right now is thanks to people who believed they could do better than nature, and they did. yes, you shouldn't do lines of coke to be better at your job, because that is a hack. it doesn't mean we can't make ourselves truly better, without "overclocking" and burning out. a candle that burns twice as bright could burn out twice as fast, or it could simply be a fucking light bulb that lasts 5 years.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yes, you shouldn't do lines of coke to be better at your job
Except, of course, for those rare individuals for whom doing coke is a part of their job. Used car salesmen, comedians, politicians, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The military regularly issues CNS stimulants to serving personnel, especially pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
i hate that kind of defeatist, "nature/god knows best" attitude. everything you have right now is thanks to people who believed they could do better than nature, and they did. yes, you shouldn't do lines of coke to be better at your job, because that is a hack.
But you should chew on a coca leaf if you're trekking up south american mountains ranges, where the leaves grow: Because it's a natural remedy for altituted sickness. Hacks your sea-level body for high altitude performance, it does.
Re:you can do this with drugs too (Score:4, Insightful)
I like to phrase it like this:
Drugs are like cheat codes on video games. They can be a lot of fun, and you might see and do things you wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. But then it starts to get boring, and playing without the cheat code starts to feel unsatisfying (or to difficult). Unfortunately you can't switch to a different video game because with drugs it's your life that you're playing.
LASIK, high blood pressure, gene therapy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Crud, then, because I and a LOT of my friends have had LASIK surgery to correct my vision. It turns out god gave me bum eyes that focused everything slightly in front of my retina, and that fixed it pretty well with minimal, if any, long-term trade-off.
My dad had high blood pressure. In spite of efforts to control it through diet and exercise, he foolishly took drugs to control it, thinking that he could improve upon his natural system to regulate it. He died a few years ago of bladder cancer. I'm not sure how exactly that was a long-term tradeoff since the doctors told us they were completely unrelated, but he seemed not to mind the short-term benefit of living a reasonably long time.
Also, where exactly do we draw the line? I mean, some people run 10 miles or more a day; surely that can't be normal and can be considered a measure to "improve on what you have," and statistically, those people tend to live longer. Do we consider eating certain foods that contain substances shown medically to lead to longer and more healthy lives, or for that matter, avoiding natural foods that contain substances shown medically to be harmful (fat, cholesterol, etc.) to be trying to improve on what we have? Before long, we'll be living in a world where technologies such as gene therapy could prevent or significantly reduce conditions like Down's Syndrome, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. Should we avoid those as well?
I suspect that this study is the first in a long line of research that may lead to exciting new therapies for people who might not be able to learn normally. And yes, if it's shown effective without significant side effects, it might be used much as LASIK is today, a method of improve on what we were given with little to no risk. Personally, I don't see much wrong with that. If you disagree, that's certainly your right, but I would ask that you not judge others, try to impinge on the freedom of others to make informed decisions regarding their own body, or worst of all, try to keep the research from happening that could potentially improve the lives of many people who are not able to function normally in society due to preventable or even curable disabilities.
Just some food for thought.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, humans are evolved for just that--persistence hunting [wikipedia.org] is basically constantly running after an animal until it's too exhausted to get away.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I noticed after I posted that there was a weird mix of sarcasm and seriousness, and I thought, "You know, some people are going to interpret that wrong." If I could take it back, I would have worded it a bit differently to make what I was saying consistently clear.
Oh well, it wasn't really meant to be an editorial masterpiece, it was just a couple of random thoughts trying to convey that saying that people shouldn't try to improve themselves is kind of an overly broad statement, that sometimes th
Re: (Score:2)
That's about 10 60 watt bulbs. What the heck are you using? I want one?
I got the new 40watt LED ($24 at home depot) and it ROCKS. Unfortunately the 60 watt by the same mfg weighs 2 pounds (I'm not joking- it may be over 2 pounds) and is much bigger). My "hydra neck" fixture immediately sags to the ground with that bulb in place.
I think LED is "close" except for price. But given the life span and current draw, it's awesome for difficult to change fixtures or lights you want to leave on all the time (lik
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Put a diode in your electrical socket, and hook yourself up.. Be sure to stream the video on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
God damn, read the friggin summary all the way at least.
The benefits persisted for the puzzles they tried to learn during the experiment. They otherwise saw no improvement at all, short term or long term. We can logically assume, since the summary made no mention of it, that the reverse current degraded their abilities the same way. If you don't understand that, I'll spell it out: they performed at the level of a six year old for the puzzles they tried to learn during the experiments. Their abilities we