
GoFlow: a DIY tDCS brain-boosting kit - ukdm
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121861-goflow-a-diy-tdcs-brain-boosting-kit
======
mistercow
> It’s not hard to see how tDCS could pose some ethical considerations,
> though.

Only if you're primed by your culture to blanch at transhumanism.

> What if some students can afford tDCS kits, but others can’t?

What if some students can afford college, computers, calculators, tutoring,
study guides, etc. but others can't? This is one of the silliest purported
ethical issues I've ever seen, but it consistently gets contemplating nods
from those pretending to be wise, so long as we're talking about a new, scary
technology, and not a mundane, accepted reality.

~~~
thwest
Some are primed to blanch at transhumanism; Some are primed to accept a class-
based social hierarchy as simply mundane and not an ethical issue.

Every new privilege granted to the top socioeconomic class is an appropriate
opportunity to ask the question "why solve this problem instead of improving
peoples' lives by tackling inequality?" The answer can be that one is simply
working on what one is good at. However that answer doesn't mean the question
is silly or appropriate to sideline.

~~~
Gormo
What does the fact that some people may not be able to immediately afford the
latest innovations have to do with accepting a "class-based social hierarchy",
or recognizing any social hierarchy at all?

Who is 'granting' any 'privileges' to anyone - where do these kinds of notions
even come from?

Reducing the particulars of actual people's real lives to instances of
abstract categories _is_ silly, inappropriate, and insulting; if you know
someone who you think would benefit from this device, but who can't afford to
buy one, then you can buy one for him yourself. If you know many such people,
you can start a foundation to buy them for people, and contribute your own
energies to developing even lower-cost open-spec implementations, a la
Raspberry Pi.

There are plenty of actual solutions you can pursue when you address problems
within the particulars of their own contexts. But those who instead prefer
merely to dawdle with abstractions, propose preemptive universal-scope
policies, and cast people's real circumstances into arbitrary taxonomies are
_themselves_ the one promoting some kind of "class-based social hierarchy".

------
pdx
As an EE, I was pretty sure I could disprove this, with a quick look at
conductivities of bone vs muscle. My theory being that most of the electric
current would travel through the scalp, and not pass through the skull to the
brain.

I found this link, however, which is pretty interesting, that shows
conductivities of various tissue types, if anybody is interested. It looks
like the skull is not much of an electrical barrier.

[http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/16/002/pdf/0031-9155_...](http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/16/002/pdf/0031-9155_54_16_002.pdf)

~~~
DanBC
If the skull was an insulator it'd make EEG really hard. Not saying EEG is
easy, but if you can record brain signals (which are very small) I'd think
that dc could be having some effect.

From Wikipedia about EEG:

> _A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when
> measured from the scalp and is about 10–20 mV when measured from subdural
> electrodes._

------
dia80
A cautionary tale. I'm getting a skin graft on Monday after I gave myself 1%
full thickness burns with 3 x 9v batteries. I'm a paraplegic and I fell asleep
with electrodes on my back so I'd didn't feel anything but awoke to some
pretty nasty burns. I completely underestimated the risk of hurting myself.

~~~
DanBC
May I ask about the set-up?

Where both electrodes on your back? Did you use some conductive gel gloop? Was
this a dc or an ac signal? Why 3 batteries? Where they in series or parallel?

May I also ask what your device is used for?

Apologies for the interrogation!

(Good Luck with the grafts btw.)

~~~
dia80
Gel-electrodes, 27v DC - clocked at 100ma when I tested it. 27v to get
required field strength across the site of my injury, just a back of the
envelope guess. Both electrodes on my back 1 above 1 below the site of my
injury.

It's a long story but it seems a modest electric field can encourage axon
regrowth in damaged spinal cords. Good evidence for this including a phase 1
human trial in 2005 but nothing since. Here is one of the first papers:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.902500204/abs...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.902500204/abstract)

My arduino controlled device:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/105950978003980827748/posts/hQY2...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/105950978003980827748/posts/hQY2tn3n1bs)

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I'm all for experimenting on yourself. Go for it.

However, I'm also a software engineer for a medical device company and I spend
a great deal of time assessing and mitigating the safety of various
operations. Please take care to understand the failure modes of anything you
build and attach to your own body. When you get to the point of using an
Arduino (or anything else that uses software), the number of failure points
goes up dramatically. Try to consider how _anything_ could fail and what the
consequences will be.

------
achy
Are the measured effects of tDCS really large enough to outweigh any effects
from confirmation bias and statistical anomalies? Were the tests performed
double-blind using placebo units?

~~~
scotch_drinker
At the risk of appealing to authority, I have to assume that if DARPA is using
it to train snipers, they know it works whether it's due to the tDCS or mental
priming as mentioned below. Obviously, from a theoretical standpoint it's
important to know why it's working but from a lifehacking/making better
snipers/learning Perl/selling $99 tDCS kits standpoint, it doesn't matter how
it works, only that it does.

~~~
wickedchicken
> I have to assume that if DARPA is using it to train snipers, they know it
> works

This keeps getting thrown around but I'm having a hard time identifying a good
source (other than a bunch of blogs repeating the same 'fact'). The best I can
do is this set of slides which claim 'a 2.1x improvement' [1], but no
confirmation that it's actually in use.

The brain is very poorly understood, and throwing random electrical fields
across it "because I saw it on extremetech" is a terrible idea.

[1] <http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008intell/kruse.pdf>

~~~
alexyoung
I remember reading more detail on the snipers here:

Zap your brain into the zone: Fast track to pure focus
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501.600-zap-
your-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501.600-zap-your-brain-
into-the-zone-fast-track-to-pure-focus.html?full=true)

Which references Experimental Brain Research, vol 213, p 9:
[http://www.mendeley.com/research/transcranial-direct-
current...](http://www.mendeley.com/research/transcranial-direct-current-
stimulations-effect-novice-versus-experienced-learning/)

------
arscan
This sounds suspiciously like the time machine that kip ordered off the
internet in napoleon dynamite.

~~~
bicknergseng
Or one of those ab exercisers from a TV infomercial.

------
scotty79
Here's the schematic for current limiter and description how to pick
components for it. [http://www.vidisonic.com/2008/07/10/current-limiting-
circuit...](http://www.vidisonic.com/2008/07/10/current-limiting-circuit/)

~~~
scotty79
I started with bottom left schematic here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_limiting>

and found resistor values by tinkering in simulator (I'm a noob) and I arrived
at this:

[http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.200277308269...](http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.20027730826997+56+10.0+50%0Ag+240+416+240+448+0%0AR+240+64+240+16+0+0+40.0+9.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Ar+192+208+192+272+0+47000.0%0Ar+240+336+240+368+0+270.0%0Aw+240+336+240+320+0%0At+192+272+240+272+0+1+-0.049593363704599325+0.5925171322994098+290.0%0At+240+320+192+320+0+1+-0.5925171322994098+0.5300513115911913+290.0%0Aw+240+320+240+288+0%0Aw+240+368+240+384+0%0Aw+240+384+192+384+0%0Aw+192+336+192+384+0%0Aw+192+64+240+64+0%0Ar+352+64+352+128+0+1.0%0Ar+384+64+384+128+0+4000.0%0Aw+384+64+352+64+0%0Aw+240+416+240+384+0%0AS+368+192+368+128+0+1+false+0%0Aw+192+272+192+304+0%0Aw+192+208+192+64+0%0Aw+240+256+240+192+0%0Aw+240+192+368+192+0%0Aw+240+64+352+64+1%0A)

Now time to check how it works in the real world. ;-)

------
cmwright
This is a really interesting idea -- I wonder how many people will be willing
to hook their brains into a $99 device.

tDCS has also been found to be effective in treating major despression
([http://www.brainstimulation.columbia.edu/doc/journal_club/pa...](http://www.brainstimulation.columbia.edu/doc/journal_club/papers/boggio_neuropsychopharmacology_2008.pdf))

~~~
DanBC
Your link does not say it's effective for treating major depression. Your link
does say that it might be effective and deserves further investigation.

They had a tiny sample size of 40 people, split into 3 groups.

I agree that it'd be great if there was a lot more, and better, research into
this.

To answer your question: I'd be happy to plug myself into a $99 device, so
long as it was built competently.

------
raarky
Would be interesting to try this about 5 years after the first batch of users
lead the charge.

If it has any effect then the side effects would be my first major concern.

~~~
mattais
The tech is over 40 years old actually. Tons of research out there if you've
got some free time.

~~~
cheatercheater
Can you show some examples of implementation that are 40 years old?

------
mbijon
Why isn't this a Kickstarter project yet?

Forget about sign-ups, this is well enough organized to attract pre-purchases
(plus I want one sooner).

~~~
mattais
Thanks for the love. The kickstarter should be starting soon. Also a full
schematic will be posted around the same time if anyone wants to order the
parts themselves.

------
thinkdevcode
I've been fascinated by all of the articles posted on here about tDCS, so I
definitely signed up. I'm willing to pay $99 for a device that's probably
worth $10 in parts, so long as its easy to use, easy to assemble, and works.
Besides, if it works, I wouldn't mind starting my own business selling pre-
built tDCS machines.

------
ComputerGuru
I was about to order the kit for the heck of it, until I saw the "meme
picture" on their order page.

I am not going to give my money in exchange for a product I'll trust with my
health to a company that thinks "U LEARNED RUBY? Y TAKE SO LONG" is
proper/fitting advertisement.

------
thedangler
I think this company does it too. But they have more products.
<http://www.b-alert.com/products/index.html>

~~~
draggnar
that's eeg, it monitors brain waves. tdcs is supposed to stimulate.

------
dinkumthinkum
At the risk of being downvoted, after the reading all the comments here,
disappointingly, it appears P.T. Barnum's often quoted remark (yes I'm aware
he may not have said it, irrelevant) about suckers and being born every
minute, is especially applicable to HNers. Maybe it's some kind of "too smart
for their own good" kind of phenomenon (getting into this business of current
regulators and all this jibber jabber); but, perhaps that is just self-
serving.

~~~
adammichaelc
AFAIK 70-80 human studies have been done on tDCS, most of them placebo-
controlled.

Here's a review on the topic from Nature:
<http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html>

~~~
dinkumthinkum
So, the link you gave me is nice and it says this: "Overall, though, the
optimism among tDCS's believers remains high." I'm sure it is but my point
remains regardless of the votes. This research is very sparse and the benefits
are not quite that clear and the possibility that these fairly unclear
benefits could be the result of some kind of mental priming or other the
should leave suspicion intact.

Given the kind of claims being made, don't we need more than this?

OK. Fine. Wonderous possibilities - transhumanism and all that.

This is hardly a "proven" scientific thing and the benefits are somewhat
murky. What I'm seeing on HN, surprisingly, are people talking about buying
some contraption that purports to make them smarter and the CONSENSUS seems to
be that that is entirely reasonable. Disturbing.

More disturbing I'm seeing comments about people experimenting on themselves
with crudely crafted contraptions and hurting themselves and others simply
offering advice about voltage regulators and the like. This is clearly a
"sucker born every minute" territory." I'm really surprised to see this on HN.

I get the impression that I could post about some kind of startup in which I
am going to disrupt biotech by curing cancer with some kind of Wi-Fi therapy
and probably what I would get as a response is hints on how to optimize the
timing protocols, reduce latency, and so forth.

~~~
DanBC
You still haven't read the studies. Your point would be much more powerful if
you linked to a study and showed where they had gone wrong. (That's not hard;
they typically use very small sample sizes. It's hard to randomise the groups.
How was the blinding done? How are the effects measured? What are the
confidence ranges on the results.)

But you should note that these are not quack journals and disreputable
colleges - these are real journals and real researchers. Note that most of the
reports are fair - "might be effective" and "deserves further investigation"
tend not to be the language used by quacks.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point?

------
DanBC
So, some electrodes (easily available for TENS machines, or you could go more
high-tech); conductive gel; one 9v battery; one 4500 ohm resistor; (or
probably two batteries and a current regulator).

Does anyone have a map of cathode / anode electrode positions?

~~~
draggnar
[http://www.jove.com/video/2744/electrode-positioning-and-
mon...](http://www.jove.com/video/2744/electrode-positioning-and-montage-in-
transcranial-direct-current-stimulation)

also there is reddit.com/r/tdcs for more info

------
victork2
My thought process:

See that it can be an interesting concept. Look at the article "mmm why not".
Click on GoFlow.com link, see the meme in the front page. It's a bad one.
Close page, will never come back.

~~~
barrybe
GoFlow.com is a site about sailing, this site's at
<http://flowstateengaged.com/>

~~~
idm
OP went to the correct site; you posted the URL containing the same bad meme
about Ruby.

------
sdfjkl
What are the side effects of this? Has anyone here actually tried it?

------
albertzeyer
All given learning examples are about muscle memory. I.e. maybe it works only
good for the cerebellum but not so good for learning other things.

~~~
finnw
That would not explain the claimed effect on depression

------
Tenoke
I would definitely buy it and use it.

------
djtriptych
Another ethical wrinkle:

Given that we have good evidence that this technology is safe and remarkably
effective, is it ethical to NOT deploy this technology on those government
executives on whose decision-making and information-processing ability
American lives depend?

~~~
DanBC
we don't yet have good evidence of neither safety nor efficacy.

~~~
mistercow
You should do some research before claiming that there isn't evidence for
something. If you look at the wikipedia article on tDCS, you'll find a number
of peer-reviewed citations regarding its safety and efficacy.

------
georgieporgie
On the subject of ethics, I've been looking into Modafinil (Provigil, etc)
lately. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's a drug which eliminates the
cognitive effects of sleepiness. Its current approved use is for treatment of
narcolepsy. The effects last for around eight hours, and the drug doesn't
induce jitters or negatively impact decision making. Quoting off the top of my
head, a military test showed sleep-deprived helicopter pilots operating within
17% of their well-rested accuracy after 36 hours of continuous duty. It _can_
be used to stay awake for very long periods, but it's more interesting for its
effects in normal waking periods. Not only does it prevent sleepiness, it
increases focus and seems to have anti-depressant properties.

I'm pretty well convinced that over the next decade we'll see this and similar
drugs proliferate among white collar jobs. Let's face it: our work is boring
and the body is not well adapted to it. It's difficult to keep the mind
engaged when the body thinks it's a good time to nap or chat with the tribe.

If you look back at photos of the space race, two things are likely to be
prominent: coffee and cigarettes. The brilliant engineers who put men on the
moon using slide rules also dosed themselves with stimulants in order to
maintain focus. These days, cigarettes are on the wane, and something will
need to replace and improve upon them.

A common criticism is, "what if everyone is on them?" Well, so what if they
are? The automatic assumption is that we'll all be working 16 hour shifts, but
I don't see any reason to expect that. If I can maintain focus and do a day's
worth of highly productive work in four hours, why not expect the work day to
drop to four or six hours (six giving a net benefit to the employer) over
time?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Based on the common programmer complaint of being on call/working very long
hours, I think your conclusion is rather naive.

Everyone doing it will just result in it being the expected behavior to get
more work out of 8+ hours on the job.

~~~
georgieporgie
Several issues:

1) How do we quantify the number of programmers subjected to these conditions?
Squeaky wheels get noticed. Personally, I've had only a few stretches where I
was expected to work more than around 40 hours per week. I've also had several
stretches where I only worked less.

2) How do we compare what is still a very young field (computer programming)
to other fields? How do we compare knowledge work with manufacturing? How many
hours per week do you work compared to a textile manufacturing worker in the
late 1800s? Did their productivity scale directly with hours? Does yours?

3) You simply don't have any reason other than pessimism to reach your
conclusion.

~~~
cheatercheater
Being the lazy type I ask that you answer those yourself and report back.

------
eagsalazar
Awesome that someone is doing this however I have to say the parts involved
are only worth about $10 so $99 is a bit nuts. Someone should just post the
plans and the parts list with instructions and anyone can build one of these
safely in a couple hours.

~~~
mattais
Absolutely. Once the device has been tested to our satisfaction, a full
schematic and parts list will be published for the solder junkies out there.
Free of charge.

The $99 kit is a solderless, and no tools necessary setup.

\- Matt @flowstateengage

~~~
shabble
I would assume (hope?) that you've tried it yourself? If/how did it work for
you?

~~~
leon_
he's selling crap worth $10 for $99 and people are willing to buy. so I guess
it worked pretty good.

~~~
DanBC
He's selling stuff worth $10 for $99, that other people were selling for
hundreds or even > $1000. So I guess it worked pretty well for them too.

