Electric brain boosting | Hacker News Reader

Electric brain boosting

ox.ac.uk

37 pointscr4zy27 comments

I recall a while back there were advertisements for a device that could stimulate your muscles directly, making them stronger without you even having to go to the gym. However, it was discovered not to long after their release that usage over a long term caused the nerves in the area to atrophy. People were completely losing the ability to contract their muscles normally; the muscles would only contract when under the influence of the device. I am not a physician, but I would be very cautious about using a device like this unless it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I remember seeing advertisements for these devices in middle school and they suddenly stopped. I asked someone (probably another student) what happened, and they told me about the nervous atrophy thing. So there's a good chance it's made up, sorry for not checking my sources first.

That's very interesting. Do you have any references?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_muscle_stimulation seems to indicate that this is both a relatively common practice and generally regarded as not very dangerous.

While Wikipedia is, of course, neither a primary source nor entirely reliable, I've also been unable to find any references to nervous atrophy in the literature or via a cursory Googling, so any links that could be provided would be awesome.

As mindcrime pointed out, a previous discussion of this is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3525744

Highlights:

Video how to: http://www.jove.com/video/2744/electrode-positioning-and-mon...

Buy: http://soterixmedical.com/tdcs.php

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

This is the first time I've ever seen a device advertized as having a "sham feature."

Clearly, you need to shop for more research-oriented neuromodulation devices.

edit: Did not intent to come off as snarky. Really, you actually should buy more neuromodulation devices that are research-oriented. Because they are cool. Seriously though, this is uncharted water. Be very careful. As a physician, I can't recommend actually sticking this on your head (yet).

I figured out that it was meant to allow researchers to use it on the control group. I just thought that was a rather strange way to advertise the feature.

edit: No worries, I had a good laugh.

Someone should really do a kickstarter project. I'm sure it'd be funded.

And a tad dangerous. Just to point out the obvious from the article, even with no malfunctions and perfect equipment, reversing the direction made the subjects significantly stupider on the task.

Supposedly, the reversed direction both only inhibited the learning of the task while the reversed current was applied (and didn't make the subjects generically less apt) and "Previous work by the team showed that a similar induced impairment effect was short-lived."

This might be of some interest:

Savant-like numerosity skills revealed in normal people by magnetic pulses

http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/SavantNumerosit...

The only thing I want to know: how can I get myself one of these?

How hard is it to build one of these things? Is it safe to use them? Cost?

Just think about how much easier it will be for high income parents to get their kids into Ivys by boosting their SAT math skills using this technology. Unethical?

Why would it be unethical?

It's not like it'll divide us any more than we already are ( at least here in the states).

This technology would be an awesome startup idea to try and get it down to a reasonable price range for almost all people to utilize.

In the previous HN thread on this topic[1], a HN member pointed out that he had built a device for doing this for around $30.00.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3525744

Im sure as hackers we could figure out how to make a device such as this, but the idea I was alluding to would be to make a device that is very cheap and very easy to use (like a hat you put on for 30 minutes and turn on by pushing a button, with an auto off after the time is up)

Sure, I was just pointing out that the actual technology is something that already isn't terribly expensive or hard to build. That doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for somebody though.

If anything, the bigger problem than the price to build the device would probably be the regulatory stuff. I mean, you just know that the government will immediately declare something like this to be a "medical device" and insist on an elaborate, byzantine, corrupt, kafkaesque, bureaucratic nightmare of a regulatory process to get something like this approved.

I'm guessing that the HN community would think supporting a lot of safety and regulatory hoops for this is meddling statism?

I can't help but imagine all the cranks who'd sell smartness treatments and do permanent damage to the brain... homeopathy but with a chance of actual damage.

No more unethical than private tutoring, in my opinion.

People understandably like to draw parallels between mental enhancement and physical enhancement in the context of sports. The difference is that sports are a purposefully-created level playing field, where any sort of enhancement creates an unfair advantage, eliminating the point of the game.

In the real world, there's no intentionally level playing field for entertainment's sake. It's up to everyone to get ahead as best they can. Nobody would complain if their mover were using steroids.

The the difference between the top 0.001% and 0.002% is in most sports the difference between making millions and working at Wendy's. As long as everyone is dealing with the limits of biology there is a huge incentive to avoid injury and promote general heath. But, once you start artificially altering basic pathways you can trade huge long term downsides for a tiny performance gain. And due to the competitiveness nature you basically force everyone to do the same. In other words it's a zero sum rule so why not chose rules that keep people healthy over time.

But, outside of Med school there is simply less competitive pressure so I don't think we are going to see the same sort's of banning unless there is significant long term damage. On second thought people often take a fair amount of drugs to get though Med school as it is.

My main concern is the use of technology as a crutch for self improvement. I can appreciate the use of thought enhancing technology coupled with a strong will and determination to accomplish a certain goal - for I think that is a human ideal. But the moment I reconsider is when technology becomes the symbol for self improvement instead of a means to an end. We see this with diabetics who take insulin but never change their eating habits, people who purchase gym memberships but never attend, people who buy books but don't read them, or people who ride a helicopter up to the summit of Mount Everest, etc. Sometimes technology demeans the human experience and the significance of accomplishment... and I think people who struggle regularly feel cheated by advantages that are afforded to people who have privileged access to things of all measure.

Any evolutionary biologist have theories on why our brains would be so underutilized? I wonder if there is a disadvantage to certain kinds of intelligence. Perhaps society works best when there is a variety of levels of intelligence, so there are larger numbers who are easier to lead and satisfied with less grandiose work. Maybe it has more to do with conserving energy or avoiding conflict?

Or, at the very beginning of when evolution reached a "high enough" intelligence to make us use tools (to make tools), it ceased to be of significance compared to the rate of civilization evolution we experienced. We domesticated fire 400,000 years ago, I don't think human level intelligence hasn't evolved much since. (Nutrition, education, knowledge sharing increased much though!) So, our current brain architecture is "one" reached solution (not an optimal) in the possible states of evolved intelligences. Also, our brains are not under-utilized. We don't really know how everything works, and for startes our brains are very robust!

Well, our brains already use up 10 Watts, about 1/10 of our total resting energy budget, so I could certainly see that being a limiting factor.

So cranking up the caloric drain of the brain should burn more body fat, right?

I can already see the TV-Shop infomercials... :p

I can't find the specific article I was looking for, maybe it's more urban legend than fact, but supposedly chess players burn just as many calories per hour as athletes. In the top results on google you'll find comparisons of chess players to football players, and chess grand masters to olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. Somewhere in here is material for an infomercial sure... play our specially designed MMORPG and the calories will magically melt away!

Just curious, how do you measure something like that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com