[Neuro] tDCS at Noisebridge?

[John Withers]

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.
>
>     K
>

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.

j