[Neuro] tDCS at Noisebridge?
jwithers at reddagger.org
Wed Apr 17 22:30:32 UTC 2013
On 04/17/2013 03:11 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:
> I can appreciate both the idea that phrenology doesn't work and the
> idea that there is some amount of statistical consistency across
> populations in roughly what brain regions do what and how people
> respond to stimulation of various kinds in various regions.
> Where would you say the distinction relevant to playing with tdcs is,
> if you can? (So this can be part of the documentation being assembled,
> I hope.)
> On Apr 17, 2013 3:04 PM, "Kelly" <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
> <mailto:hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'd just like to remind everyone that phrenology doesn't work,
> regardless of what you put in your table. But a list of some basic
> regions with citations would be an awesome start. It's probably
> worth making roughly tabular even if some line items are wildly
> less dependable than others because there are probably a few
> parameters that you care about for each region.
I believe that Kelly was being somewhat satirical with the phrenology
comment and mainly trying to get across the idea of making a chart in
the manner outlined.
This is less a matter of super exact positioning than the reliability of
small studies. The electrodes we use are 2" rounds. That's a huge swath
of brain. What's more important is that most TDCS studies are small.
Thus not all that reliable. This is a major problem with pretty much the
whole cogsci field and has been a big deal lately.
In the long run, I will probably want to add some kind of
power/confidence kind of thing to various points and results. Right now
I am just focused on getting done with what I have and getting it up there.
More information about the Neuro