safe electronic brain stimulator

[Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\)]

Hi there...

Incidentally, there already exists an "electronic brain stimulator". And
it's used frequently for cognitive neuroscience research. It's called TMS
(transcranial magnetic stimulation). I'm a bit scared of it so I've never
had it done... the idea is that you place a large coil close to the head,
then you pump 8000Amps through the coil in a short burst, this creates a 2
tesla magnetic field which induces current in the brain.

And, of course, there's always ECT (electro-conculsive therapy)... as made
infamous by "One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest". ECT is still used today for
some psychiatric problems. No one really knows why it works, but it does
seem to. But it also screws your memory.

Thanks,
Jack

 

[Don Pearce]

And, of course, there's always ECT (electro-conculsive therapy)... as made
infamous by "One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest". ECT is still used today for
some psychiatric problems. No one really knows why it works, but it does
seem to.

Well, it will certainly turn a fruit cake into a cabbage - if you
consider that to be working. I don't consider it to be much of an
advance over the blade-up-behind-the-eye-socket lobotomy.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Paul Burke]

Well, it will certainly turn a fruit cake into a cabbage - if you
consider that to be working. I don't consider it to be much of an
advance over the blade-up-behind-the-eye-socket lobotomy.

It may be an urban myth, but I have heard of a British hospital that
used an ECT machine for years, no one noticing that it was broken.
Apparently the results were exactly as though the machine had functioned
normally.

Paul Burke

 

[Don Pearce]

It may be an urban myth, but I have heard of a British hospital that
used an ECT machine for years, no one noticing that it was broken.
Apparently the results were exactly as though the machine had functioned
normally.

Paul Burke

I suspect that would be a myth. The physical symptoms during ECT are
pretty severe and shocking (no pun intended!).

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Bob Stephens]

It may be an urban myth, but I have heard of a British hospital that
used an ECT machine for years, no one noticing that it was broken.
Apparently the results were exactly as though the machine had functioned
normally.

Paul Burke

I've heard of people faking convulsions, but it would be a pretty good
trick to fake inducing them...

 

[Paul Burridge]

It may be an urban myth,

It is.

but I have heard of a British hospital that
used an ECT machine for years, no one noticing that it was broken.
Apparently the results were exactly as though the machine had functioned
normally.

Your recollection is faulty. There was such a case, certainly, but it
didn't involve ECT. It must have been some other costly piece of junk
but I can't remember quite what it might have been after so long.

 

[Don Taylor]

Incidentally, there already exists an "electronic brain stimulator". And
it's used frequently for cognitive neuroscience research. It's called TMS
(transcranial magnetic stimulation). I'm a bit scared of it so I've never
had it done... the idea is that you place a large coil close to the head,
then you pump 8000Amps through the coil in a short burst, this creates a 2
tesla magnetic field which induces current in the brain.

There are published results in the journals out now that show much
lower levels of magnetic fields, thousands of times lower or even
smaller, have observable effects on the brain.

Things on the order of little reed-relay coils with an iron core
being driven by perhaps a dozen volts with frequencies in the low
tens or hundreds of hz appear to be enough to observe effects.

Apparently nobody tried these low level varying frequency stimuli
in the past, that is the only explanation I can imagine why this
wasn't discovered earlier.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Taylor <[email protected]>

There are published results in the journals out now that show much lower
levels of magnetic fields, thousands of times lower or even smaller,
have observable effects on the brain.

Please give specific citations. If true, this is very important. But I
suspect it is fantasy.

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

There are published results in the journals out now that show much
lower levels of magnetic fields, thousands of times lower or even
smaller, have observable effects on the brain.

Things on the order of little reed-relay coils with an iron core
being driven by perhaps a dozen volts with frequencies in the low
tens or hundreds of hz appear to be enough to observe effects.

Apparently nobody tried these low level varying frequency stimuli
in the past, that is the only explanation I can imagine why this
wasn't discovered earlier.

Oh, they have been tried before. Electro-medical quackery and chicanery
have a long and profitable history.

Starting with 'Perkins Tractors':

http://www.collectmedicalantiques.com/quack.html

The answer to the question "Has anyone ever ..." is "Yes".

 

[Joel Kolstad]

The problem is that it can be very difficult to isolate the effects of such
low level stimuli from, oh, say, the thousand watts per square meter effect
of the sun beating down on your head...

There's a huge difference between 'observable effects' (I mean, if you want
to be silly, technically speaking you can't even _measure_ _anything_
without creating an _effect_ on it, right?) and 'deleterious effects.'

Things on othe order of a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa appear to
be enough to observe effects.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Don Taylor]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Taylor <[email protected]>

Please give specific citations. If true, this is very important. But I
suspect it is fantasy.

Certainly, I'm always up for citations to support a result.

Low-Field Magnetic Stimulation in Bipolar Depression Using an MIR-Based
Stimulator. American Journal of Psychiatry, V16,#1,Jan 2004 pp93-98

They saw a significant difference between treatment and placebo, using
<6 Gauss fields, when rTMS uses up to 20000 Gauss fields.


Antinociceptic effects of a pulsed magnetic field in the land snail,
Cepaea nemoralis, Neuroscience Letters, V222, 1997 pp107-110.

They saw a significant difference between treatment and placebo, in
response to pain using a 100 microtesla magnetic field.


Differential entrainment of electroencephalographic activity by weak
complex electromagnetic fields. Perceptual & Motor Skills, V84(2),
Apr 1997, pp527-536.

This is work done by Michael Persinger. He and some of his grad
students have been publishing a string of papers describing the
effects of low level varying magnetic fields. Some of the papers
are looking at odd things but others seem very conventional.
I asked another prof in the neuroscience field if this was all
just made up. He responded that it didn't appear so, some other
folks have replicated some of these results but nobody knows quite
what to make of some of this yet.

I have a pile of photocopies of his papers, and others, but I can't
find them at the moment. The psyc index can get you pages of
references if you search for keyword 'magnetic' and author 'Persinger'

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Taylor <[email protected]>

I have a pile of photocopies of his papers, and others, but I can't find
them at the moment. The psyc index can get you pages of references if
you search for keyword 'magnetic' and author 'Persinger'

Thank you.

 

[Scott Stephens]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Taylor <[email protected]>



Please give specific citations. If true, this is very important. But I
suspect it is fantasy.

IIRC the Navy did some studies, as have the Soviets, and found the earth
has micro-gauss pulsations in the magnetic field which have biological
affects. Has to do with the biological clock.

The Persinger stuff is pretty far out, although some other studies have
demonstrated people are sensitive to sub-gauss fields. If you can't find
them (the credible rather than crank links on my web site) I suppose I
could try digging some up.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens

The Persinger stuff is pretty far out, although some other studies have
demonstrated people are sensitive to sub-gauss fields. If you can't find
them (the credible rather than crank links on my web site) I suppose I
could try digging some up.

I don't have any practicable way of getting the papers cited by Don
Taylor, so if you have web site links, that would be helpful. But I'm
going to be off-line for a few days, so don't expect a swift reaction.

If you could e-mail me, at <jmw[at]jmwa dot demon dot co dot uk>, that
would be helpful, because I will unsubscribe from all newsgroups to
avoid getting 4000 articles to look at when I return.

 

[Rich Grise]

Differential entrainment of electroencephalographic activity by weak
complex electromagnetic fields. Perceptual & Motor Skills, V84(2),
Apr 1997, pp527-536.

This is work done by Michael Persinger. He and some of his grad
students have been publishing a string of papers describing the
effects of low level varying magnetic fields. Some of the papers
are looking at odd things but others seem very conventional.
I asked another prof in the neuroscience field if this was all
just made up. He responded that it didn't appear so, some other
folks have replicated some of these results but nobody knows quite
what to make of some of this yet.

I do, but nobody wants to hear it. )-;

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Don Taylor]

IIRC the Navy did some studies, as have the Soviets, and found the earth
has micro-gauss pulsations in the magnetic field which have biological
affects. Has to do with the biological clock.

One of the papers that I can't find now described how someone realized
that the Canadian government had placed magnetometers all across Canada
and all that data on tiny fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field
was just sitting there. So the took the hospital records for conditions
that were thought to depend on fragile biological rhythms and some that
seemed very unlikely to depend on rhythms. The chose sudden infant
death syndrome, a cardiac condition dealing with rhythms and as controls
stroke and something else. Then they looked for correlation between
the magnetic variation and the hospital records. And they found that
the sudden infant death syndrome correlated with the magnetic events.
I think they had statistical significance.

I don't have the paper but I did find the reference:

Geophysical Variables and Behavior: CIII. Days With Sudden Infant Deaths
and Cardiac Arrhythmias in Adults Share a Factor With PC1 Geomagnetic
Pulsations: Implications for Pursuing a Mechanism. Perceputal and
Motor Skills, 2001, 92, pp653-654.

366 patients, correlation > 0.3 only for the arrhythmia cases. Comparing
the day before the magnetic event the correlation was 0.05.

The Persinger stuff is pretty far out, although some other studies have
demonstrated people are sensitive to sub-gauss fields. If you can't find
them (the credible rather than crank links on my web site) I suppose I
could try digging some up.

Some of them are pretty odd. But if you have more credible stuff
I'd certainly be interested.

thanks

 

[Scott Stephens]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
'safe electronic brain stimulator', on Fri, 8 Oct 2004:

The Persinger stuff is pretty far out, although some other studies have
demonstrated people are sensitive to sub-gauss fields. If you can't find
them (the credible rather than crank links on my web site) I suppose I
could try digging some up.

I don't have any practicable way of getting the papers cited by Don
Taylor, so if you have web site links, that would be helpful. But I'm
going to be off-line for a few days, so don't expect a swift reaction.

If you could e-mail me, at <jmw[at]jmwa dot demon dot co dot uk>, that
would be helpful, because I will unsubscribe from all newsgroups to
avoid getting 4000 articles to look at when I return.

I'll have a look over the weekend.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

tiny fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field
was just sitting there. So the took the hospital records for conditions
that were thought to depend on fragile biological rhythms and some that
seemed very unlikely to depend on rhythms. The chose sudden infant
death syndrome, a cardiac condition dealing with rhythms and as controls
stroke and something else. Then they looked for correlation between
the magnetic variation and the hospital records. And they found that
the sudden infant death syndrome correlated with the magnetic events.
I think they had statistical significance.

Correlation does not prove causality. In a case like this statistical
significance does not exist.

First you need to find the causal mechanism and demonstrate repeatable
and reliable control over it, then measure the size of the effect
in nature.

Correlations are fun to play with, and sometimes to lead to the finding
of a causal mechanism, but they are best left as parlor games. Viz:
Sunspot cycles correlate with the length of women's dresses.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Nicholas O. Lindan <[email protected]>

Correlations are fun to play with, and sometimes to lead to the finding
of a causal mechanism, but they are best left as parlor games. Viz:
Sunspot cycles correlate with the length of women's dresses.

Yes. Fewer people with syphilis are killed in road accidents than people
without. Makes you think.

But not very long.

 

[Don Taylor]

Correlation does not prove causality. In a case like this statistical
significance does not exist.

I don't have the original paper in hand but I think my last sentence
was perhaps inappropriate and without the paper in hand I don't want
to compound the mistake by trying to patch what I said.

But I will go so far as to say

Rule number 1 in statistics: NOTHING proves causality, ever.

Someone could shoot me repeatedly and nobody could prove causality
between guns and bullets and my being dead. A decade ago I spent
some time reading an academic text on the subject but it has been
too long for me to try to go further with this.

First you need to find the causal mechanism and demonstrate repeatable
and reliable control over it, then measure the size of the effect
in nature.

Correlations are fun to play with, and sometimes to lead to the finding
of a causal mechanism, but they are best left as parlor games. Viz:
Sunspot cycles correlate with the length of women's dresses.

And someone can just as easily claim you haven't found the causal
mechanism and deny all your results. Pick any of the hotly denied
claims in the world today as examples.