In recent years, it has become a common practice to find a machine that will replace the effects of hard work and practice. Many of these can be fond during late-night infomercials, but some lucky few have graced the pages of science literature over the past decade. One such treatment is known as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). As the name implies, the goal of tDCS is to provide a low wattage of electrical impulse to the brain to help improve neuron firing (or slow it if the results are undesired) by changing the electrical environment around the neurons.
For those of you new to the physiology blog, it is important to remember that neuron firing is the propagation of an action potential down the axon of the neuron. This propagation is achieved by voltage-gated ion channels that allow for the environment within the neuron to go from a resting negative electrical environment to a positive one. Without getting into the gritty details, the message will be continued down the axon with a short delay afterward to help reset the chemical environment that helps make this axon firing possible. The idea of tDCS is that you can use electricity (hopefully in small, controlled doses) to improve the way neurons function in the brain. With persistent treatment and stimulation from the external environment the neurons might be tricked into long-term potentiation, known more commonly as learning. Like the Ab Master 3000, the end goal is that you do minimal effort to achieve maximum results. It's like giving your brain a six pack. The benefits touted include improving memory, treating depression, making you more creative, making making mental math easier and improving your reading comprehension and speed.
Now for the sad news. A group of researchers has reviewed the roughly 200 studies confirming the impacts of tDCS and found no significant results are truly confirmed in any of the studies. The disclaimer is that testing the effects of tDCS is very challenging limited only to testing associated impacts like improved blood flow to an area or how muscle contraction improves after stimulation. The results are highly variable and the controls in the studies have been called into question as well. Some in the scientific community wave this discovery of...well nothing significant as merely an inability to measure what they are sure is happening. Others believe it undermines the entire area of treatment by refuting the impacts on physiology. More research reviews are being conducted by the group from The University of Melbourne where the first was published focusing on the cognitive impacts of tDCS. The initial results have been deemed controversial at best. The moral of the story is we can't really say what tDCS does with full confidence.
If you are looking to improve the way your brain works, try practicing the skill in question. If you spent the resources you originally invested into researching and buying a DIY tDCS kit and simply practiced mental math, you would likely see the same improvements in your skills. Neuroscience is growing every day and getting closer to finding the way to grow and improve the human brain, but until then, take those few extra seconds and struggle through the mental math and create long-term potentiation for nothing but your time.
Resources:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393214004394
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26636-has-the-brainzap-backlash-begun.html#.VHyIXIvF-Sq
Hey Nathan! Way to hearken back to the idea of LTP! That is unfortunate that the data remains unclear, as to the success of tDCS. When I first started reading your post, I couldn't help but think of some of the ethical questions that would arise if this ultimately were to show a successful/consistent trend. You mentioned that researchers sought to use this technique to improve memory, treat depression and perhaps learning disorders; however, the other things listed seem to be a bit more 'cosmetic.' If, down the line, this concept were put into practice (given clear cut results and approval), do you think this would be limited to clinical use, or be available to the public to condition themselves as they please? Would using this to become more creative or improve math comprehension be considered 'performance enhancement'? Just something to think about...
ReplyDelete