Re: Reverse EEG

You are right, Chuck, medical procedures are not meant for hobbyists. They
are meant for trained practitioners who know what they are doing. Even
Nuerofeedback, which is non-invasive, could be dangerously harmful if done
in the wrong way. Specifically, one could easily build an EEG monitor with
the aid of the wealth of open materials in this forum. However, the tool
that he just built to extract the various brainwaves would be useless if he
does not know how to produce useful matrics for assessment and training,
and, worse still, could be dangerous if he thinks he knows but in fact he
does not!


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]> wrote:

> Raymond,
>
> I think we're in agreement, mostly.  My intention is not to slander,
> diminish, or discourage established medical devices or protocols that
> use electrical current.  Medical value depends on outcomes.  I agree
> with you about therapeutic value, but I have to insist on a point of
> fact: even small amounts of electrical current can kill neurons.
>
> I do want to discourage hobbyists, untrained (or scientifically
> illiterate) people from using trans-cranial direct current stimulation
> on themselves or others.  It's a disturbing trend.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Raymond Chan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > We do not put currents into the brain for fun. We do that for a purpose.
> In
> > the case of CES, we do that to manage mental disorders such as insomnia,
> > anxiety and depression. There are many studies on CES which one could
> browse
> > on the Internet, read up and then make an informed decision as to
> whether to
> > try this modality. CES is of course not alone. There are other
> established
> > electrical devices in the medical industries such as TENS, Muscle
> > Stimulators and Pacemakers etc.
> >
> > It is not my intention here to promote the use of any of these devices
> as it
> > would be irrelevant to this forum. I just wanted to air my view that I do
> > not agree that we should never put an electrical current into our brain.
> > Raymond Chan
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Safety is always relative.  Each of our cells, neurons included, die a
> >> natural death on their own, with a certain regularity or probability.
> >> An increased frequency or probability of death is what we might call a
> >> "cause" of death.
> >>
> >> Current in neurons is different.  There are no electrons exchanged in
> >> neuron currents.  The potential difference across neuron membranes is
> >> thanks to the well-known sodium-potassium pump.  There are several
> >> different ions that make up neuron currents, including calcium,
> >> potassium, sodium, magnesium, and chlorine.  The currents result from
> >> variable conductances of each of those ions across the potential
> >> difference.
> >>
> >> How does electron current work in an electrolyte solution, then?
> >> Electron currents work by handing electrons between carriers (except
> >> in conductors where the electrons travel freely in the conduction
> >> band).  The negative charge carriers (Hydroxide ions, Chlorine ions)
> >> migrate towards the cathode and the positive carriers ( Sodium,
> >> Potassium, Hydrogen ions) migrate towards the anode.
> >>
> >> At the anode, an electron gets transferred to a positive ion, giving
> >> it a neutral charge. Neutrally charged H atoms can bond to form
> >> hydrogen gas H2.  If a sodium ion accepts an electron, it travels a
> >> short distance before donating its electron to a hydrogen ion, with
> >> the same net effect: splitting off neutral hydrogen and leaving
> >> hydroxide ions in solution.
> >>
> >> At the cathode, electrons are donated from the negatively charged
> >> ions.  Neutral oxygen is produced from hydroxide ions at the cathode.
> >> The result is electrolysis.  This produces free radicals--reactive
> >> compounds in the cell that can react with other more important
> >> molecules in the cell to cause cell death (or malfunction).
> >>
> >> Back to the first point:  safety is relative.  I smoke and I have a
> >> dark sense of humor.  When someone asks me for a cigarette, I give it
> >> to them and tell them: "You might have saved my life.  That could be
> >> the cigarette that kills me."  I get suspicious looks.  No amount of
> >> smoking is actually safe.  The probability of harm does depend on the
> >> magnitude, but even small sources carry some risk.
> >>
> >> So, I do believe that the outcome vs risk balance is what's important,
> >> but I also don't think we need more people experimenting with
> >> electrical current vis a vis brain function.  It's like conducting
> >> studies on the therapeutic effects of tobacco.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Raymond Chan <
> [email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Chuck,
> >> >
> >> > A high current kills cell. A low current does not. Here is my
> reasoning:
> >> >
> >> > (1) There are currents flowing naturally in the brain anyway. There
> are
> >> > tiny
> >> > electrical potentials maintained across cell membranes. Each cell
> >> > produces a
> >> > tiny current that flows in its immediate region but there are also
> >> > currents
> >> > produced throughout the brain due to a phenomenon known as volume
> >> > conduction. In fact these are exactly the sources of current that
> >> > produce
> >> > the EEG signals.
> >> >
> >> > (2) According to the Occupational Safety and Health Academy (OSHA),
> >> > current
> >> > intensity of 1 mA gives the human body just a faint tingle.
> >> > (http://www.oshatrain.org/courses/mods/715m2.html. Page 2.2).
> >> >
> >> > I would consider a CES device that uses a treatment current of less
> than
> >> > 1
> >> > mA at less than 20V dc safe.
> >> >
> >> > Raymond Chan
> >> >
> >> > P/S: It is mid-night my time here. I am calling it a day.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have plenty of respect for the process--the engineering, the
> studies
> >> >> of patient safety, and the actual positive outcomes for patients that
> >> >> justify FDA approval.
> >> >>
> >> >> But in principle, I can't support it: current can kill cells.  There
> >> >> have been some folks (and the military) who have supposedly been
> >> >> building electrical stimulators for enhancing learning and training,
> >> >> which I find awful.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is, however, the mitigating circumstances of a non-invasive,
> >> >> non-pharmaceutical therapy.  Like any therapy, it works for some
> >> >> people and I would want them to be able to use it (voluntarily).
> >> >>
> >> >> Chuck
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Boštjan Barbiš <
> [email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi group,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > FDA acceptance or not, there are hazards connected with prolonged
> use
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > CES. Many take FDA approval as a way to go for many things, but
> >> >> > forget
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > how complicated form of creations we are and try simplistically
> mess
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > everything.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The fact CES is effective can be viewed as the way of statin drug
> >> >> > being
> >> >> > effective. I am asking at what expenses? Imo the safest rote to
> >> >> > improve
> >> >> > brain work is through gentle chelation and nutrition regimen,
> >> >> > combined
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > mental training such as EEG biofeedback. Dealing with emotional
> >> >> > traumas
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > stored some damage is imo a way to best and fastest results,
> >> >> > meanwhile
> >> >> > TES
> >> >> > can be used for a fix some situations, but not cure...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hope this helps.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-07-23 14:17 GMT+02:00 Raymond Chan <[email protected]
> >:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Chuck,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I agree with you 100% that we cannot hope to simply take the kind
> of
> >> >> >> reverse route that Nicolas Prat described to re-activate an EEG
> >> >> >> pattern
> >> >> >> by
> >> >> >> applying voltages externally. And I agree with you 100% on the
> >> >> >> reasoning why
> >> >> >> this reverse route is not possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However, I do not agree with you that we should never apply a
> >> >> >> current
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> the head. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulators (CES) have existed in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> market for decades. The US FDA has been evaluating this modality
> for
> >> >> >> three
> >> >> >> decades and finally agreed to classify these devices as Class II
> on
> >> >> >> June 12
> >> >> >> this year because,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> quote,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> …(FDA) has determined that there is sufficient information to
> >> >> >> establish
> >> >> >> special controls, and that these special controls, together with
> >> >> >> general
> >> >> >> controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
> >> >> >> effectiveness
> >> >> >> for CES devices…
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> unquote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Refer to FDA Federal Register #33712.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Raymond Chan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Charles Z Henry
> >> >> >> <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> See... this is dangerous.  You might spend time developing your
> >> >> >>> idea,
> >> >> >>> but it's almost certainly not worth your time.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Do not apply currents to your head.  Period.  Currents in the
> brain
> >> >> >>> are the flow of ions across membranes.  They are not the same as
> >> >> >>> currents in conductors.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You could not hope to re-activate a pattern by applying voltages
> >> >> >>> externally.  The pattern of activation is essentially lost in
> >> >> >>> transmission.  EEG voltages are the sum of small dipoles that
> >> >> >>> develop
> >> >> >>> across dendrites from billions of neurons.  You're going from a
> >> >> >>> very-high dimensional space to a low-dimensional space.  You
> can't
> >> >> >>> re-create the details of the high-dimensional space from a
> >> >> >>> low-dimensional space. Brainwave entrainment is possible--and
> there
> >> >> >>> are some safe methods.  However, you will get nowhere close to
> >> >> >>> inducing a repeatable, recognizable pattern.  Stimulating an area
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>> the brain does not re-create its activity.  The temporal and
> >> >> >>> spatial
> >> >> >>> resolution of patterns of activation is much finer than what you
> >> >> >>> can
> >> >> >>> re-create from outside of the skull.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If you're really into this idea, you should study a lot of
> >> >> >>> cognitive
> >> >> >>> neuroscience papers to learn the roles of regions of the brain in
> >> >> >>> cognition.  You can't re-create a pattern of activation
> externally,
> >> >> >>> but it is possible to influence the functioning of some regions
> of
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> brain (stimulate or inhibit).  This is an experimental science
> and
> >> >> >>> by
> >> >> >>> no means completely understood.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Chuck
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Nicolas Prat, PhD
> >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > In fact, this is not magnetic but purely electrical. Voltage
> gets
> >> >> >>> > conducted to the surface of the skull, registered by
> electrodes.
> >> >> >>> > The
> >> >> >>> > reverse route applies voltage to the skull, which gets
> conducted
> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > neurons and (this is the unknown part!) triggers a pattern that
> >> >> >>> > might
> >> >> >>> > be
> >> >> >>> > recognized and (re)activated.
> >> >> >>> > Seems like active electrodes are necessary for the recording
> >> >> >>> > phase
> >> >> >>> > and
> >> >> >>> > passive for the playback part. 100mv at the skull both ways.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> _______________________________________________
> Openeeg-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openeeg-list
> Go to the above address to change your
> subscription options, e.g unsubscribe.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds