Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Boosting Your Brain With Batteries 81

Posted by michael from the nine-volt-on-tongue-also-works dept.
Bifurcati writes "Running a tiny current acrosss your head increases your verbal skills reports Nature News. 103 nervous volunteers received 2 thousandths of an amp and showed a 20% improval in a simple verbal test, compared to a control group (same setup, just no current in the wires). Somebody better buy the politicians a couple of car batteries..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boosting Your Brain With Batteries More

Boosting Your Brain With Batteries

Comments Filter:

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I'm sceptical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pentagram ( 40862 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:34AM (#10631261) Homepage
    Were these tests performed under double-blind conditions? How was it determined that the effect was from the application of a current rather than the idea? The article doesn't say.
    • Oops, just noticed that they did. Still, it seems that the current required to get this effect is quite noticeable, so there could certainly be a psychological component.
      • "Still, it seems that the current required to get this effect is quite noticeable"

        2 1/1000 of an amp... That's 0.002 amps.

        • Re:Oops (Score:4, Informative)

          by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:11AM (#10631655) Journal
          It'd be noticeable unless its confined to the brain (since there are no receptors in the brain itself). 2 milliamps is quite a bit, in fact. 6 milliamps at the heart is sufficient to cause loss of muscle control and impair circulation. 4 milliamps will impair your muscle control enough that if it were applied to you, say, in your bathtub, you'd have a hard time getting out. It only takes 60 milliamps at the heart to kill you outright.

        • Re:Oops (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Pentagram ( 40862 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:58AM (#10632140) Homepage
          From the article: "And apart from an itchy sensation around the scalp electrode, subjects in the trials reported no side-effects."

          If the effect is psychological, having a physically detectable (by the subject) component is likely to reinforce it.

          • New Idea (Score:4, Funny)

            by cft_128 ( 650084 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:54PM (#10635036)
            From the article: "And apart from an itchy sensation around the scalp electrode, subjects in the trials reported no side-effects."

            If the effect is psychological, having a physically detectable (by the subject) component is likely to reinforce it.

            Hmm, so maybe to increase my verbal skills I should rub poison ivy on my skalp replicate the ichy sensation.

          • Passing current through an aqueous ionic solution...maybe it's from the formation of H2(g) and O2(g) under the scalp :)

    • Re:I'm sceptical (Score:3, Informative)

      by Andy_R ( 114137 )
      From TFA: "A smaller current of one thousandth of an amp had no effect." - this sounds like a good demonstartion that it's the current not the idea or placebo effect to me.

      Presumably to get this study printed in a reputable journal they would have to reach a resonable standard of experimentation, which would require double-blind testing?

  • Awesome. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Canthros ( 5769 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:35AM (#10631278)
    I cannot wait to overclock my brain.

  • Burn Out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by silverfuck ( 743326 ) <`dan.farmer' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:36AM (#10631286) Homepage

    What happens when you up the voltage on your CPU? That bathtub curve becomes a lot shorter in timespan.

    Hope the same doesn't happen with your brain.

    • Does that mean (Score:3, Insightful)

      by metalhed77 ( 250273 )
      How many people die of brain failure? I would think that death by natural causes is predominantly other organs failing / terminal diseases.
      • Isn't a coma when your brain decides it can't cope anymore? I'm sure there are other examples. Also there are many ways other than catastrophic failure that can kill given time, e.g. Alzheimer's.
        • People don't just slip into a coma. They get hit with a hard object or get some weird disease or something. I'm only asking about brain damage with regard to increasing the current flowin through.
      • The reason brain is so robust is because of its distributed nature. So what if a neuron is destroyed another neuron will take its place and perfrom the same function. People who have suffered stroke will in time recuperate because other part of the brain is takes over the functionality of the brain which was damaged in the stroke.
        • However, it doesn't mean complete functionality is ever returned. My mother suffered a stroke; though her entire left side was paralyzed, she recovered-but is still unable to walk unassisted.
      • How many people die of brain failure? I would think that death by natural causes is predominantly other organs failing / terminal diseases.
        It is called "stroke", and it is the third leading cause of death [wrongdiagnosis.com] in the US.

        Crispin

      • How many people die of brain failure?

        Since death is defined as brain death, all of them; by definition :-)

  • I applied voltage to my brain... (Score:3, Funny)

    by cerebralsugar ( 203167 ) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:37AM (#10631309)
    and all I got was this lousy erection that won't go away!
  • *Somebody* needs a battery up side of the head!

  • Mystery Solved (Score:5, Funny)

    by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:38AM (#10631321) Homepage
    And now we know what Bush had strapped to his back during the debates.
    • Drat, you beat me to it. I rushed in here to make that joke only to find it taken. How frustrating. Well, back to drilling holes in my skull. If I can't out type you, I can certainly out talk you. And if that fails, a slight boost and I will show you my impression of Emperor Pallpatine from Star Wars...
      • >>Well, back to drilling holes in my skull.

        Venkman: Egon, do you remember the time you tried to drill a hole in your head?
        Spengler: That would've worked if you hadn't stopped me.

    • And now we know what Bush had strapped to his back during the debates.

      A brain?

      -

  • Lets see 20 words beginning with a certain letter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:41AM (#10631360) Journal
    Lets see 20 words beginning with a certain letter in 90 seconds. Harder then you may think because 90 seconds go fast when you are stressed. As any person is in a test. It is why people on quiz shows are always so stupid. Or why you always think of the witty comeback on the way home.

    Anyway she reports a 20% increase. Hmm, if I get my math right that mean they got 24 words in 90 seconds?

    Now it all depends on how the results were calculated. It obviously had some kind of effect if EVERYONE who had the current did 20% better then those who didn't. But this is never the case. Not everyone without the current would have gotten 20. Some would have gotten 16, some 24. Same with the current applied.

    The study is far to small and inprecise. We are only talking a few words more. Because the subjects who received the current knew it (they reported an icchy feeling) the test is not really blind as these test need to be. That might have inspired them to do better.

    If the same can be done with more complex language tests then it could prove that something is happening here other then the placebo effect.

    Anyway I am the kind of person who always gets electric/static shocks from everything, by this logic I should be a language genius. I am not.

    • Anyway I am the kind of person who always gets electric/static shocks from everything, by this logic I should be a language genius.

      Not really. For one thing, static shocks probably wouldn't go through your brain (unless you have the habit of ramming your head against metal objects). And even if it did, it would only mean that you should be smarter with language than if you had never received those shocks -- it says nothing about how smart you would be relative to the general population. The study also d

      • Exhibit C: Incorrect use of the word "then" in the second sentence.

        Exhibit D: All Small Furry Creatures encountered thus far have been linguistically challenged. Including the one strolling around my legs right now in an 8-form.
        • Could you be more specific re: Exhibit C? I ask because the only usage I saw was "than", and it was used correctly.

          What is an 8-form?
          • Exhibit C refers to the second sentence by the GRANDparent, counting from my original post. It says "Harder then you may think...", since my post was meant as a continuation from the parent poster.

            Your second point is valid though. I was talking about my cat, but it should be "figure eight" or "figure of eight" in English. I think my native language is showing through... Consider me arrested, supreme officer! :)
            • Aha! Grandparent! I am illuminated!

              I, speaking practically no languages other than English, am not prone to correct errors which are clearly due to a non-native-English-speaker's unfamiliarity with English idiom - especially American idiom. I mostly wondered what you meant with the 8 thing.
    • Lets = Let's

      To = too

      Inprecise = Imprecise

      Icchy = itchy

      Hmm...

      Anyway I am the kind of person who always gets electric/static shocks from everything

      That explains a lot!

    • Re:Lets see 20 words beginning with a certain lett (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gewis ( 717661 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @01:14AM (#10639317)
      You're not a statistical genius either. If 103 people get an average 20 words for each person in 90 seconds on the first round, that is a total of 2060 words for all of them. If you then apply current and test them and they get 2472 words, some individuals may have gotten 16, while others may have had 32, and the average increase over the sample was 20 percent. And with 103 people, that's a large enough sampling to show a real effect.

      Of course, that could mean that they all just did better the second time. That's why the author of the paper split them into two groups, a zapped group and a control group. With 50 people, you're still working with a large enough sample to get useful averages as indicators, though not proof. And what did she discover? The zapped group did twenty percent better than the control group. If the control group showed NO improvement, they'd have 1000 words total, and the zapped group would have 1200 words.

      Placebo effect is rather far-fetched here. Yes, the zapped people did feel an itchy feeling, but both groups had electrodes and believed they'd be zapped. The real zappees performed much much better than their counterparts.

      What bothers me most about your post is that you're ripping her study apart because it's not absolute proof. Of course it isn't. It's a study. All science is looking at indicators, trends, probabilities, hypotheses... and it's totally counter-productive to wait until you've proven it outright. What you should be saying is, "Hmm... that's really interesting that she reported such a large improvement, and her results definitely indicate something curious going on. Perhaps this deserves a closer look."

      If you're going to attack studies and reports, people, make sure you have the credentials and expertise to do so. Usually if somebody is publishing in or being reported on by Nature, they've got their ducks in a row, and your 2-minute armchair critique is going to fall hopelessly flat. Ask questions, offer insights, but criticism comes best from peers, which most of us are not.
  • If you are interviewing a suspect, it is now LEGAL to threaten them with electric shocks in order to get them to talk.

    We found that by applying electricity liberally across thier temples and genitals gave us a 100% increase in talkativeness and convictions.

    If they loose control of thier bodily functions, it is best to stop, or lower the voltage.

  • To get verbal + math enhancement (Score:5, Funny)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:44AM (#10631398) Homepage Journal
    You need more even brain coverage by the current. Perhaps by using a tinfoil hat as one of the electrodes. Other posts have mentioned where to stick the other electrode, so I won't go into that.
  • In 2007 caps with build in heatsink and fans will be all the rage, real geeks will go around with thermal paste on thier close shaved (or bald) scalps.

  • nice (Score:3, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:58AM (#10631512)
    now all I have to do is plug a battery on my tinfoil hat, and I'll have 20% more brainpower to fight the aliens!
  • Professor Hathaway: "Up the voltage"

  • Increasing evidence of biologic effect (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:18AM (#10631719)
    It's been interesting to watch the debate on electric fields and the effect on biologic systems.

    There's some evidence [yorkregion.com] that shows there's an association with cancer and some evidence that shows that it's perfectly safe. Long time cell phone users appear to be at risk [usatoday.com] for benign tumors. Now this study shows there's a possibly beneficial effect.

    Personally, the idea that there's any effect at all makes me somewhat nervous. I spend eight hours a day a couple feet away from EMF generators, as do most of the Slashdot crowd. Knowing that my computers might be tweaking my neurons or altering my DNA, however slightly, doesn't exactly fill me with glee.
  • Is that just an ironic mistake, or some sort of karma easter egg in the post?

  • Up the dosage Nurse Ratched! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Awestruckin ( 824416 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:10PM (#10632284)
    "They're givin' me 10,000 watts a day you know, and I'm hot to trot. The next woman that takes me out is gonna light up like a pinball machine, and pay off in silver dollars. " (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest)

  • Improval (Score:3)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010@@@craigbuchek...com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:46PM (#10632677) Homepage
    Apparently the poster has not tried this method. There's no such word as "improval". How about "improvement"?

  • STOP EVERYONE!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:53PM (#10632755) Journal
    This is NOT a safe technique to apply in combination with a tinfoil hat. That's what THEY want you to think.

    All the while if you really apply current to your hat they will use specially crafted rays to go through that current to your brain, or the higher tech greys can even wirelessly ride in via the magnetic field which will now surround the hat when current is applied.

    I'm warning you, don't do it or YOU could end up being the next president or some other puppetlike official!
  • I need more details! It says in the article that they applied the current for 20 minutes prior to the test and she speculated that cells could fire off more easily after the current had gone by. How did they think *during*???

    Will it be alright to pulse this through my head for a millisecond every second? Doesn't that sound like it would give you a longer, more continuous effect? I mean, I've got a AA battery sitting here in front of me that's good for 2010mAh. If I ran a constant 2mA through my head I cou
  • Zey set ze blut is ze life, but no, not blut, electreecity! Eh leck TREE city! Eegor, throw ze svitch!
    Yeth marthter.
    BWAM! Fzzzt. Zk fzzsnk bzz
    Eeet leeves. Leeeeeves! Hahahahahaha eee hehehehe. LEEEVES!

    Modern science, eh? They should have just hired the guys at Hammer Horror. Been doing this sort of stuff for years, now.

  • The true "science" behind it... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MagicDude ( 727944 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:18PM (#10635301)
    Here's how they got results.


    (**ZAP**)

    "Owww. Sorry, I'll do better, I promise, stop zapping me"

    (**ZAP**)

    "Sorry, sorry, I'll go faster"

    (**ZAP**)

  • Previous Tests (Score:4, Funny)

    by mdielmann ( 514750 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:34PM (#10635446) Homepage Journal
    Previous tests tried several thousand volts, and had the opposite impact on verbal skills, with most saying either "gnnnnh!" or nothing at all. On the other hand, the effect was permanent.
  • ...if you use your brain you generate a potential across it. Maybe one day we could feed people interesting sights and sounds and use the energy generated to power entire cities. I know, let's call this idea...mmmm...I know...The Matrix.
  • Which hemisphere gets the positive?

  • It was not clear. Was the improvement between two distinct groups with and without charge. Or did the study test everyone both ways (in a double blind manner or as double blind as an electical shock can be) and they witnessed a 20% improvement after before and after shocking?
  • I want to see some AAA powered diagrams and try this at home. It is the frontal lobe, beneath a full 3/4 " of hardened calcium (in some, harder than others). We should be able to empirically test this by finding spelling errors in subsequent posts.
  • That bit about 2 ma being less than it takes to power a digital watch was good. LCD watches are in the microampere range: the guy was off by a couple orders of magnitude. You try drawing two mils from a button cell and see how long it lasts.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Close