Talk:Transcranial direct-current stimulation

Physiology Unassessed Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Unassessed

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

tDCS published as doubling effectiveness at some activities

The journal Nature has an informal article on tDCS where they describe research, Volunteers receiving 2 milliamps to the scalp (about one-five-hundredth the amount drawn by a 100-watt light bulb) showed twice as much improvement in the game after a short amount of training as those receiving one-twentieth the amount of current — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 100 watt light bulb is equal to 100,000 milliamps. Therefore, 2 milliamps is not equal to one-five-hundreth of a 100-watt light bulb. 2 milliamps is about 50,000 times weaker than a 100-watt light bulb. 111.69.156.109 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watts!=Amps. Light bulbs operate on more than 1 volt.

A 100 watt light bulb is NOT equal to 100,000 amps. Amps and watts are not the same. Watts are are amps multiplied by volts. Therefore the contribution immediately above is meaningless.
Fletcherbrian (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can shed some light on this.
Ohm's law: V=IR, where V=Voltage (volts), I=current (amps) and R=Resistance (ohms).
As mentioned by Fletcherbrian, P = VI, where P=power (watts).
Average (RMS) power-line voltage is around 120 volts in North America.
If you do the math, you'll find that a 100 watt bulb has current of 0.83 amp.
.83 amp = 830 ma.
830 ma / 2 ma = 416.
Therefore, a 2 ma tDCS current is 416 times weaker than a 100 watt light bulb's 830 ma current, and Nature's claim was close enough.
Please see http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/ohms_law_calculator.php for a nice Ohm's law calculator.

~Peter Nau 05:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

potential resource

"Amping Up Brain Function: Transcranial Stimulation Shows Promise in Speeding Up Learning Electrical stimulation of subjects' brains is found to accelerate learning in military and civilian subjects, although researchers are yet wary of drawing larger conclusions about the mechanism" by R. Douglas Fields Scientific American November 25, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear plagiarism and/or marketing language

Multiple sentences in the "Discovery" section are lifted directly from a page that markets a particular tDCS device: http://www.trans-cranial.com/howitworks. They either copied it from wikipedia or (more likely) they copied themselves to pad the article. Not sure what to do about this. I'm deleting a couple of the offending sentences. superbatfish (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiblame is useful to find when content was added and by whom. If all the content was added at the same time or by the same editor, it should probably be removed.

Looks like it was by one editor, if I've identified it correctly: [1] --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look into this in any detail. I'm not clear that I've found the appropriate edits, nor what may have been copied. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad claims

This is a new form of treatment supported by a small foundation in published literature. This article reads like promotional pamphlets for a TDCS clinic. Disgraceful! 69.108.166.39 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 references isn't a "a small foundation in published literature". The above reaction ("Disgraceful") is over the top in my view. Fletcherbrian (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 references is fine, but the article is still written like an advertisement, and many people seeking genuine information about tDCS on Wikipedia may disregard the article due to the way it is written. So yes, disgraceful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.164.82 (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms of action

The actions on the excitability of neurones will depend upon the orientation of neurones within the electrical field. I would actually expect cortical pyramidal cells (probably the main class targeted) near the anode to be excited, but these predictions are hard to make. Does anybody actually know of any real electrophysiological data on this question?

The description of which electrode is excitatory in incompatible with the hypothesized regulation of hyperactivity.

All the mechanisitic speculation about LTP, LTD etc seems just that - VERY speculative.

The control of sham stimulation seems imperfect. Even if subjects have no consciousness of the continued stimulation, presumably nerve endings in the scalp are still potentially activated. Has anybody performed a control with a local anaesthetic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.152.80 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

The device shouldn't have a battery greater than 6 volts. Burning of the skin (at the least) is a risk. I've had burns on my skin using a 9 volt PP3 battery despite limiting the current to 2 mA. I would not like to think that a similar burning took place in my internal organs - particularly my brain.Fletcherbrian (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on safety have been deleted - I have reinstated them. There is plenty of empirical evidence that using 9 volts DC on the body is not safe. If required I will post the necessary links, but Wikipedians could be in big trouble if someone killed themselves using a device that say, stopped their heart, because of a lack of a warning on here. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from The818Studios) I apologize if I am placing this is the wrong area, I am new to wikipedia. However, I am in the industry and I would have to completely disagree with your conclusion. In fact, using anything less than a 9V battery would be too small of current to overcome the resistance of the human head. So essentially if you tried to get 2mA using, say, a 6V battery, because of the limitation of the battery you may only be able to get 1.1mA. Additionally, if you received burns on your skin I would look at the specific circuitry that was used, along with the electrodes you used. In my opinion skin lesions are almost always tied to poor quality self-adhesive electrodes, or to sponge electrodes with too small a surface area.

   -The 818 Studios

Direction of current flow

The article reads: "The conventional current flows from the anode through the skull and brain to the cathode, creating a circuit." Gah. Electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, so the current actually flows from the cathode to the anode. Right??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.104.254 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]