'Thinking cap' makes brain waves in Australia

Allan Snyder, director of the University of Sydney's Centre for the Mind, said the device worked by suppressing the left side of the brain, associated with knowledge, and stimulating the right side, linked to creativity.

"You wouldn't use this to study or to help your memory," Snyder told AFP. "You would use this if you wanted to look at a problem anew.

From this I'd have thought you could use the opposite configuration to help you focus on memorising facts or doing repetitive arithmetic

"Snyder said the device had been in use by scientists for a decade, but this was the first study into how current passing through the brain could amplify insight."

What the hell? They've been using this technology for a decade, and we're only just hearing about this now? Typical, I suppose.

How is "creativity" measured? By passing a math test?
Was it a double blind study? How does a current suppress or stimulate brain hemispheres? How did they know the electricity went through the brain and not along the skin?
This is not science.

How does a current suppress or stimulate brain hemispheres?

Deep brain stimulation uses electrodes to suppress cells at specific areas, it may be a bit of a leap but wouldn't low levels throughout the brain cause a similar effect but at lower levels of suppression?

How did they know the electricity went through the brain and not along the skin?
This is not science.

I don't know if this applies but people being struck by lightning have had electricy go throughout there body along nerves. Could a similar process allow electricy to go into the brain?

What I want to know is how do they control what part of the brain is affected without some sort of magnetic field?

Jake

I certainly hope this was a double blinded study where the both the testers and the participants did not know which participants were getting current and which were not. Otherwise this could all be one big placebo effect party.

Otherwise this could all be one big placebo effect party.

Ain't no party like a placebo effect party / cuz a placebo effect party don't stop! Well, until people discover it's a placebo. Hmm, someone should try that at a rave.

@frajo,

I can't answer all of your questions, but I can answer some:

How does a current suppress or stimulate brain hemispheres?

Neurons maintain a fine balance of electric charge across their cell membranes (called a resting potential.) Neuronal communication relies on transitory disturbances and temporary reversals of that electric potential. Applying an external electric field disturbs that balance, making neurons either more or less apt to communicate (a negative external charge would tend to excite neurons, while a positive external charge would tend to suppress them.) DC electrodes would create a steady voltage across the brain: more positive charge on one side, more negative on the other. Thus, exciting one hemisphere while suppressing the other.

How did they know the electricity went through the brain and not along the skin?

The skin is one of the worst-conducting tissues (it's dry, and lacks electrolytes.) Internal tissues tend to conduct much better.

This is ok, but cell phones cause cancer!

Internal tissues tend to conduct much better.

This is the part that sort of debunks brain stimulation/suppression. The network of arteries, veins and capillaries in the dermal layer, adipose layer, and throughout the skull ought to act like a pretty good Faraday cage, especially given the electrolyte levels of blood plasma. I mean, detecting neural activity through the wet tissue is one thing, manipulating it is quite another.

To be honest, my first thought when reading this article was wondering when physorg was gonna post a piece on Ergone generators. Although in this case, I'm willing to admit that my assumptions might be in error, it just seems to me that in order to get through the skull, the electric field would have to be so strong that it would damage the intervening tissue.

This is certainly an experiment to try at home

And again, they didn't take the placebo effect into account. Sounds more like bogus 'science' to me.

Thanks to all who explained some physiological aspects.
Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this thing is serious.
The language ("Thinking Cap") is not serious; it sounds like a gadget children play with.
The promises are stated in a non-binding language: "aim at promoting creativity". That's business talk, when you want to sell something but don't want to be held responsible for anything.
How can anyone measure enhanced "creativity"?
And then they go on to tell it "boosted results in a simple arithmetics test". Are arithmetic tests indicators of creativity?
Nothing has been boosted as they didn't measure the results with the same participants without and with the gimmick. When I pass an arithmetic test better than my neighbour then I can't say this result is a boosted one.
No - here definitely somebody is trying to misuse science to make some bucks. Or he is testing the gullibility of the public.

Thanks to all who explained some physiological aspects.
Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this thing is serious. The language ("Thinking Cap") is not serious; it sounds like a gadget children play with.

Lighten up frajo - scientists are allowed to make humors puns too.

No - here definitely somebody is trying to misuse science to make some bucks. Or he is testing the gullibility of the public.

No, you are wrong here and are reading too much into insignificant details. The device is not a hoax or as scam.

No, you are wrong here and are reading too much into insignificant details. The device is not a hoax or as scam.

There is nothing but insignificant details. Even the picture is showing only some box I could have tinkered together when building my first transistored radio receiver. And a sweatband they wear when doing aerobics.
Anything else but insignificant details and loud-mouthed advertisement using legally non-binding language? Any second sources which support their claims? Any tests of noteworthy significance? Any data which allow to independently test the claim?

And again: How do you measure creativity?

Any second sources which support their claims? Any tests of noteworthy significance?

Yes there is. I think I heard it examined in more detail in a recent science podcast of The Naked Scientists...

"Snyder said the device had been in use by scientists for a decade, but this was the first study into how current passing through the brain could amplify insight."

What the hell? They've been using this technology for a decade, and we're only just hearing about this now? Typical, I suppose.

Ever heard of electroshock therapy? ;) This is pretty much the same thing, though at a much lower intensity and in a different configuration.

Three times as many people who wore the "thinking cap" were able to complete the test, compared to those who did not use the equipment. Sixty people took part in total.

Here we go with the double blind test BS. The test means nothing if there were apples in one group and oranges in the other. They should have used 2 tests with similar but different math questions and used all 60 people with and then without the cap.

There is no way to assess the math ability difference between the 2 groups without testing them first which is what the study was all about to begin with. A catch 22. This blind subservience to double blinds is baloney and it isn't because I don't understand all about the double blind method, it's because I do. It has its uses in a large test but with so few people as this it was the wrong way to test this head set.

Three times as many people who wore the "thinking cap" were able to complete the test, compared to those who did not use the equipment. Sixty people took part in total.

Here we go with the double blind test BS.

I don't see any remark that this was a DB test.

The test means nothing if there were apples in one group and oranges in the other. They should have used 2 tests with similar but different math questions and used all 60 people with and then without the cap.

Yes.

There is no way to assess the math ability difference between the 2 groups without testing them first which is what the study was all about to begin with. A catch 22.

Yes.

This blind subservience to double blinds is baloney ...

I don't see the connection between the article and DB tests.

Given this is a science website I would expect more then just a copied news article I could read on CNN. However, google to the rescue I cut through the crap and found the research paper.

The answer to all your questions -
(spaced added to get around spam filter)
www . centreforthemind . com/publications/PLoSOneFeb2011.pdf

The answer to all your questions -
(spaced added to get around spam filter)
www . centreforthemind . com/publications/PLoSOneFeb2011.pdf

Thanks.
The homepage looks like any politician's PR site. The list of "recent publications" contains seven entries from an Australian newspaper or from the Olympic Committee. Photographs of Prof. Snyder prevail. Lots of pictures with prominent figures. Lots of bloated terms like "genius" and "champions" ("Every chump can be a champ").
A touch of personality cult; no real touch of science.

Photographs of Prof. Snyder prevail. Lots of pictures with prominent figures. Lots of bloated terms like "genius" and "champions" ("Every chump can be a champ").
A touch of personality cult; no real touch of science.

I wonder if Sheldon from the big bang theory is based on this guy ;)