From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neurohacking is a subclass of biohacking, focused specifically on the brain. Neurohackers seek to better themselves or others by “hacking the brain” to improve reflexes, learn faster, or treat psychological disorders.[1] The modern neurohacking movement has been around since the 1980s. However, herbal supplements have been used to increase brain function for hundreds of years. After a brief period marked by a lack of research in the area, neurohacking started regaining interest in the early 2000s.[2][3] Currently, most neurohacking is performed via do-it-yourself (DIY) methods by in-home users.[1]

Simple uses of neurohacking include the use of chemical supplements to increase brain function.[4] More complex medical devices can be implanted to treat psychological disorders and illnesses.[5]


Anna Wexler, a member of the Department of Science, Technology and Society at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims that neurohacking should be viewed as a subdivision of the ‘life hacking’ movement.[1] She argues that popularized scientific publications have led to a greater public awareness of neuroscience since the turn of the century.[6] As a result, the public was made aware of the brain’s plasticity and its potential to improve.[6]

The use of mind-altering substances derived from plants dates back to ancient history.[7] Neurohackers use a class of chemical substances that improve higher order brain functions called nootropics. The term nootropics was first proposed in 1972 by Corneliu Giurgea, a Romanian chemist from University of Bucharest.[8]

In his study, he classified Piracetam as a nootropic and determined that nootropics should fit the following criteria:

  • Enhance learning
  • Resist impairing agents
  • Augment informational transfer between the two hemisphere of the brain
  • Heighten the brain’s resistance against various forms of “aggressions”
  • Improved “tonic, cortico-subcortical ‘control’”
  • Lack of pharmacological effects of other common psychoactive drugs.[8]

Today, various nootropics are available via prescription and over the counter.[9]

The 2000 study by Michael A. Nitsche and Walter Paulus at the University of Goettingen is considered to be the one of the first device-oriented attempts at influencing the brain non-invasively. The study found that the motor cortex of the brain responds to weak electrical stimuli in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).[10][11] A later study in 2003 by Branislav Savic and Beat Meier found that (tDCS) improves motor sequence learning.[12] More recent studies have concluded that tDCS may alleviate neuropathic pain, depression, schizophrenia, and other neurological disorders.[11] Methods of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been found to enhance human performance. In 2019, a study funded by the US Department of Defense found that cognition and motor performance could be improved by tDCS. This investigation showed that tDCS could be used to enhance the abilities of military personnel. However, side effects such as “itching, tingling, and headaches” were noted.[13] The study concluded that more research into adequate safety regulations is needed before it can be properly implemented.[13]

A resurgence in the popularity of at-home and DIY neurohacking started in 2011.[1][14] The recent availability of brain stimulation devices contributed to the rise in the home neurohacking movement.[1] Individuals applied weak electrical currents to their brain in hopes of improving performance and productivity.[14] Since 2017, neurohacking devices have been available to the general public for unsupervised use. However, these methods of neurohacking have yet to gain widespread acceptance from the general public, and user retention rate for the devices remains low.[1][11]

In 2018, Marom Bikson and his colleagues at the City College of New York released a report to aid consumers in making an informed choice regarding the purchase of tDCS devices.[11] In particular, Bikson stated that the report hoped to educate consumers on the reasons why a significant price differentiation existed across the various devices on the market.


There are three main categories of neurohacking methods: oral supplements or ingestibles, procedural training exercises, and the transmission of electrical currents through the brain.

Oral supplements and ingestibles[edit]

Nootropics are any chemical compounds that cause an improvement in brain function.[15] Although many are naturally produced by the body, ingestible supplements are often required to artificially raise the concentration of these compounds in the bloodstream to produce a significant effect. Nootropics can be further classified into two categories: synthetics nootropics and natural nootropics.[2]

Synthetic nootropics[edit]

Synthetic nootropics refer to any lab-produced nootropics, including Piracetam.[16] Synthetic nootropics can act at three different junctions:[2]

  1. Dopamine receptors
  2. Adrenergic receptors
  3. Acetylcholine and glutamate receptors[2]

Natural nootropics[edit]

Natural, or herbal, nootropics, include food-based antioxidants and vitamin supplements.[2] There are three main mechanisms by which natural nootropics affect brain activity:[2]

  1. Neurotransmitter modulation
  2. Modulation of signal transduction
  3. Vasodilation

Popular supplements such as Ginkgo biloba and Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng) are characterized as natural and herbal nootropics.[16] Few studies have been conducted regarding the safety and long-term effects of prescribing these herbal supplements as a means of mitigating age-related cognitive decline. However, current research has indicated that these methods have the potential to alleviate the mental deterioration in older individuals.[2]

Procedural training exercises[edit]

Procedural training methods strengthen the connections between neurons. For example, brain training games have been around since the 2000s. Companies such as PositScience, Lumosity, and CogniFit created video games designed to improve the user’s brain function.[1] These brain-training games improve neural capacity by adding game-like features to comprehension skills.[17]

Transmission of electrical currents[edit]

There are three methods by which electrical currents are transmitted through the brain: deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).[18]

Deep brain stimulation (DBS)[edit]

DBS involves implanting an electrical device, or neurostimulator, into the brain.[19] The neurostimulator is a thin wire with electrodes at its tip. Low levels of electric current are transmitted through the brain. The location where the electrodes are implanted depends on the neurological disorder being treated.[20] The company Neuralink hopes that their DBS device will include “as many as 3072 electrodes distributed along 96 threads”, and that the procedure to implant the threads would be as non-invasive as LASIK eye surgery.[21][22]

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)[edit]

TMS sends short bursts of magnetic energy to the left frontal cortex through a small electromagnetic coil.[23] Some studies have found that TMS improves cognition and motor performance.[24] Other studies have investigated the relation between TMS and its ability to recover lost memories.[25]

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)[edit]

Brain cells, or neurons, emit chemical signals across the gaps, or synapses, between neurons.[11] When learning a new skill or topic, the neurons involved in understanding that particular subject are then primed to emit signals more readily. Less electrical current is required to signal the neurons to secrete the chemicals for transport across the synapse. tDCS involves running a very low current (less than 2mA) through an anode and a cathode placed on the head. The research shows that brain function improves around the anode, with no change or reduced function around the cathode.[13]


Many applications of neurohacking center around improving quality of life.[1]

Mental health[edit]

Bettering people's mental health is one primary application of neurohacking.

Virtual reality exposure therapy is one application of neurohacking, and is being used to treat post traumatic stress. The USC Institute for Creative Technologies has been working on exposure therapy techniques since 2005, and exposure therapy is now an evidence based treatment for post traumatic stress.[26]

Exposure therapy retrains the mind of the patient to reduce the fear associated with feeling a certain way or experiencing certain triggering stimuli.[27] By confronting situations in a safe and controlled virtual reality environment, the patient is able to reduce the anxiety associated with those circumstances.

The FDA has approved DBS devices for the treatment of both Parkinson's disease and dystonia.[5] There are several risks involved with this treatment, such as depression, hypomania, euphoria, mirth, and hypersexuality. However, permanent complications are rare.[28] DBS has also been used to treat Tourette syndrome,[5] dyskinesia[29] epilepsy[30] and depression,[31] although more research is needed in these areas before it can be deemed safe.

Human enhancement[edit]

Enhancing the human experience is another application of neurohacking. Methods include simple brain-training games, chemical enhancers, and electrical brain stimulation.

Caffeine is an effective method for enhancing human performance in everyday life. Caffeine is the most popular drug in the world (humans drink a collective 1.6 billion cups per day) and is also the most popular method by which people are neurohacking.[32] Caffeine improves memory, sociability, and alertness.[33]

Information retrieval[edit]

The third primary application of neurohacking is information retrieval from the brain. This typically involves the use of a brain-machine interface (BMI) – an apparatus to measure electrical signals in the brain.[34]

In 2016, researchers modeled an individual’s interest in digital content by monitoring their EEG (electroencephalogram). The researchers asked the user to read Wikipedia articles. From data in the EEG, they could predict which article the user would want to read next based on the individual’s expressed interest in each topic. The researchers claim this paradigm can be used to “recommend information without any explicit user interaction”.[35]

In July 2019, Neuralink – a company developing implantable brain-machine interfaces – presented their research on their high bandwidth BMI. Neuralink claims to have developed an implantable BMI device that is capable of recording and delivering full bandwidth data from the brain. The company hopes to use this technology to create a high-speed connection between the brain and digital technology, bypassing the need to type search queries or read the results.[36]

Legal and ethical aspects[edit]


The neurohacking trend has been heavily commercialized, with companies such as Lumosity and CogniFit marketing games that allegedly optimize the performances of the brain as well as alleviate the symptoms of senescence-related cognitive decline and other neurodegenerative disorders. Several studies have called into question the effectiveness of these softwares.[37] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed claims against some companies producing brain training software for misleading marketing.[38] Claims against Lumosity for misleading advertisement are over $2 million.[38] Conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of brain training software has yet to be presented.[39][40] Despite this uncertainty, the public demand for such products is rising. Sales in 2015 reached $67 million in the United States and Canada.[41]

Unfair advantages[edit]

No governing organizations responsible for overseeing athletics and education have policies regulating neurohacking. Athletes and students can use neurohacking to gain an unfair advantage in sporting events and academic settings.[42] Studies have indicated that neurohacking can improve memory, creativity, learning speed, muscle gain, and athletic performance.[43] However, there are no well-developed tests or instruments capable of detecting neurohacking. Students and athletes may utilize neurohacking techniques and never be detected.[42]

Side effects and potential risks[edit]

Most manufacturers fail to disclose the potential side effects of neurohacking devices, including significant changes to the user’s self-identity and decreased reasoning skills.[44][42] Affordable neurohacking devices are available online with prices ranging from $99 to $800, making them easily accessible to consumers. For instance, a “brain stimulator” device produced by the “Brain Stimulator” company that utilizes tDCS is priced $127 to $179.[44] However, these devices are rarely regulated by the government.[45] Using these unapproved devices with no medical supervision could cause devastating side effects.[44] Cases have been cited where individuals physically harm others as a side effect of neurohacking.[42]

Insurance claims[edit]

The Vercise DBS System produced by Boston Scientific Corporation is the only neurohacking medical device for sale that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and Good Practices in Clinical Research.[46][5] With the rise of DIY neurohacking, many individuals self-treat without proper supervision by a medical professional.[46] Insurance companies deny medical insurance compensation for users who are injured using unapproved medical-grade neurohacking devices.[42] Most neurohacking devices are uncertified and unregulated.[42]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Wexler, Anna (2017). "The Social Context of "Do-It-Yourself" Brain Stimulation: Neurohackers, Biohackers, and Lifehackers". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11: 224. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00224. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 5423946. PMID 28539877.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Onaolapo, Adejoke Yetunde; Obelawo, Adebimpe Yemisi; Onaolapo, Olakunle James (May 2019). "Brain Ageing, Cognition and Diet: A Review of the Emerging Roles of Food-Based Nootropics in Mitigating Age-Related Memory Decline". Current Aging Science. 12 (1): 2–14. doi:10.2174/1874609812666190311160754. ISSN 1874-6098. PMC 6971896. PMID 30864515.
  3. ^ Katz, Sylvan. "Forum: Roses are black, violets are green - The emergence of amateur genetic engineers". New Scientist. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  4. ^ Knapton, Sarah (2019-11-02). "Neurohacking cream which helps you learn guitar faster available in five years". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  5. ^ a b c d Health, Center for Devices and Radiological (2019-02-09). "Vercise Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) System - P150031". FDA.
  6. ^ a b O'Connor, Cliodhna; Rees, Geraint; Joffe, Helene (2012-04-26). "Neuroscience in the public sphere". Neuron. 74 (2): 220–226. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004. ISSN 1097-4199. PMID 22542177.
  7. ^ Crocq, Marc-Antoine (December 2007). "Historical and cultural aspects of man's relationship with addictive drugs". Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 9 (4): 355–361. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2007.9.4/macrocq. ISSN 1294-8322. PMC 3202501. PMID 18286796.
  8. ^ a b Giurgea, C.; Salama, M. (1977-01-01). "Nootropic drugs". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology. 1 (3): 235–247. doi:10.1016/0364-7722(77)90046-7. ISSN 0364-7722.
  9. ^ "Nootropics: Types, safety, and risks of smart drugs". 19 September 2019. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  10. ^ Nitsche, Michael; Paulus, Walter (2000-10-01). "Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation". The Journal of Physiology. 527 Pt 3 (3): 633–9. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x. PMC 2270099. PMID 10990547.
  11. ^ a b c d e Landhuis, Esther. "Do D.I.Y. Brain-Booster Devices Work?". Scientific American. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  12. ^ Savic, Branislav; Meier, Beat (2016-02-10). "How Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Can Modulate Implicit Motor Sequence Learning and Consolidation: A Brief Review". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10: 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00026. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 4748051. PMID 26903837.
  13. ^ a b c Davis, Steven E.; Smith, Glen A. (2019-04-18). "Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Use in Warfighting: Benefits, Risks, and Future Prospects". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 13: 114. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00114. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 6499187. PMID 31105538.
  14. ^ a b Wexler, Anna (2016-04-01). "The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals". Journal of Medical Ethics. 42 (4): 211–215. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102704. ISSN 0306-6800. PMID 26324456. S2CID 207011713.
  15. ^ Saiz Garcia, H.; Montes Reula, L.; Portilla Fernandez, A.; Pereira Sanchez, V.; Olmo Lopez, N.; Mancha Heredero, E.; Rosero Enriquez, A. S.; Martinez Parreño, M. E. (2017-04-01). "Nootropics: Emergents drugs associated with new clinical challenges". European Psychiatry. Abstract of the 25th European Congress of Psychiatry. 41: S877–S878. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.01.1769. ISSN 0924-9338. S2CID 232178179.
  16. ^ a b Suliman, Noor Azuin; Mat Taib, Che Norma; Mohd Moklas, Mohamad Aris; Adenan, Mohd Ilham; Hidayat Baharuldin, Mohamad Taufik; Basir, Rusliza (2016). "Establishing Natural Nootropics: Recent Molecular Enhancement Influenced by Natural Nootropic". Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2016: 4391375. doi:10.1155/2016/4391375. ISSN 1741-427X. PMC 5021479. PMID 27656235.
  17. ^ Parong, Jocelyn; Mayer, Richard E. (2020). "Cognitive consequences of playing brain-training games in immersive virtual reality". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 34 (1): 29–38. doi:10.1002/acp.3582. ISSN 1099-0720.
  18. ^ Cabrera, Laura Y.; Evans, Emily L.; Hamilton, Roy H. (January 2014). "Ethics of the electrified mind: defining issues and perspectives on the principled use of brain stimulation in medical research and clinical care". Brain Topography. 27 (1): 33–45. doi:10.1007/s10548-013-0296-8. ISSN 1573-6792. PMC 3806889. PMID 23733209.
  19. ^ Kringelbach, Morten L.; Jenkinson, Ned; Owen, Sarah L. F.; Aziz, Tipu Z. (August 2007). "Translational principles of deep brain stimulation". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 8 (8): 623–635. doi:10.1038/nrn2196. ISSN 1471-0048. PMID 17637800. S2CID 147427108.
  20. ^ Medicine, Northwestern. "How Does Deep Brain Stimulation Work?". Northwestern Medicine. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  21. ^ Musk, Elon; Neuralink (2019-08-02). "An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels". bioRxiv. 21 (10): 703801. doi:10.1101/703801. PMC 6914248. PMID 31642810.
  22. ^ Lopatto, Elizabeth (2019-07-16). "Elon Musk unveils Neuralink's plans for brain-reading 'threads' and a robot to insert them". The Verge. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  23. ^ "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) | How Does TMS Work". Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  24. ^ Levasseur-Moreau, Jean; Brunelin, Jerome; Fecteau, Shirley (2013-08-14). "Non-invasive brain stimulation can induce paradoxical facilitation. Are these neuroenhancements transferable and meaningful to security services?". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7: 449. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00449. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 3743213. PMID 23966923.
  25. ^ Rose, Nathan S.; LaRocque, Joshua J.; Riggall, Adam C.; Gosseries, Olivia; Starrett, Michael J.; Meyering, Emma E.; Postle, Bradley R. (2016-12-02). "Reactivation of latent working memories with transcranial magnetic stimulation". Science. 354 (6316): 1136–1139. Bibcode:2016Sci...354.1136R. doi:10.1126/science.aah7011. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 5221753. PMID 27934762.
  26. ^ Rizzo, Albert (March 2016). "Bravemind: Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy". Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  27. ^ Zoellner, Lori A.; Feeny, Norah C.; Bittinger, Joyce N.; Bedard-Gilligan, Michele A.; Slagle, David M.; Post, Loren M.; Chen, Jessica A. (2011-09-01). "Teaching Trauma-Focused Exposure Therapy for PTSD: Critical Clinical Lessons for Novice Exposure Therapists". Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy. 3 (3): 300–308. doi:10.1037/a0024642. ISSN 1942-9681. PMC 3188445. PMID 21984956.
  28. ^ Burn, David J.; Tröster, Alexander I. (2004-08-05). "Neuropsychiatric Complications of Medical and Surgical Therapies for Parkinson's Disease". Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology. 17 (3): 172–180. doi:10.1177/0891988704267466. ISSN 0891-9887. PMID 15312281.
  29. ^ Apetauerova, Diana; Ryan, R. Kevin; Ro, Susie I.; Arle, Jeffrey; Shils, Jay; Papavassiliou, Efstathios; Tarsy, Daniel (2006). "End of day dyskinesia in advanced Parkinson's disease can be eliminated by bilateral subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus deep brain stimulation". Movement Disorders. 21 (8): 1277–1279. doi:10.1002/mds.20896. ISSN 1531-8257. PMID 16637040. S2CID 42122286.
  30. ^ Wu, Chengyuan; Sharan, Ashwini D. (2013). "Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Epilepsy: A Review of Current Surgical Interventions". Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 16 (1): 10–24. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00501.x. ISSN 1525-1403. PMID 22947069. S2CID 1711587.
  31. ^ Moreines, Jared L.; McClintock, Shawn M.; Holtzheimer, Paul E. (2011-01-01). "Neuropsychological Effects of Neuromodulation Techniques for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Review". Brain Stimulation. 4 (1): 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2010.01.005. ISSN 1935-861X. PMC 3023999. PMID 21255751.
  32. ^ Cappelletti, Simone; Daria, Piacentino; Sani, Gabriele; Aromatario, Mariarosaria (January 2015). "Caffeine: Cognitive and Physical Performance Enhancer or Psychoactive Drug?". Current Neuropharmacology. 13 (1): 71–88. doi:10.2174/1570159X13666141210215655. ISSN 1570-159X. PMC 4462044. PMID 26074744.
  33. ^ Baer, Drake. "This Video Shows The Science Behind Caffeine's Productivity-Enhancing Effects". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  34. ^ Krucoff, Max O.; Rahimpour, Shervin; Slutzky, Marc W.; Edgerton, V. Reggie; Turner, Dennis A. (2016). "Enhancing Nervous System Recovery through Neurobiologics, Neural Interface Training, and Neurorehabilitation". Frontiers in Neuroscience. 10: 584. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00584. ISSN 1662-453X. PMC 5186786. PMID 28082858.
  35. ^ Eugster, Manuel J. A.; Ruotsalo, Tuukka; Spapé, Michiel M.; Barral, Oswald; Ravaja, Niklas; Jacucci, Giulio; Kaski, Samuel (2016-12-08). "Natural brain-information interfaces: Recommending information by relevance inferred from human brain signals". Scientific Reports. 6: 38580. arXiv:1607.03502. Bibcode:2016NatSR...638580E. doi:10.1038/srep38580. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5143956. PMID 27929077.
  36. ^ Thakur, Dinker (2019-07-18). "Elon Musk's Neuralink Aims to Merge Human Brain With A.I". TechBrackets. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  37. ^ Foroughi, Cyrus K.; Monfort, Samuel S.; Paczynski, Martin; McKnight, Patrick E.; Greenwood, P. M. (July 5, 2016). "Placebo effects in cognitive training". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (27): 7470–7474. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113.7470F. doi:10.1073/pnas.1601243113. ISSN 1091-6490. PMC 4941515. PMID 27325761.
  38. ^ a b "Lumosity to Pay $2 Million to Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges for Its "Brain Training" Program". Federal Trade Commission. 2016-01-04. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  39. ^ Au, Jacky; Buschkuehl, Martin; Duncan, Greg J.; Jaeggi, Susanne M. (2016-02-01). "There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is NOT effective: A reply to Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2015)". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 23 (1): 331–337. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0967-4. ISSN 1531-5320. PMID 26518308.
  40. ^ Foroughi, Cyrus K.; Monfort, Samuel S.; Paczynski, Martin; McKnight, Patrick E.; Greenwood, P. M. (2016-07-05). "Placebo effects in cognitive training". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (27): 7470–7474. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113.7470F. doi:10.1073/pnas.1601243113. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4941515. PMID 27325761.
  41. ^ Sparks, Sarah D. (2016-02-10). "Lumosity, Other Brain-Training Products Get Federal Scrutiny - Education Week". Education Week. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  42. ^ a b c d e f Sawant, Vinay. "Neurohacking -Legal and Ethical Issues". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  43. ^ "Noninvasive Brain Stimulation: Applications and Implications | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke". Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  44. ^ a b c Iwry, Jonathan; Yaden, David B.; Newberg, Andrew B. (2017). "Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Personal Identity: Ethical Considerations". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11: 281. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00281. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 5461331. PMID 28638327.
  45. ^ Kiss, Jemima (2016-03-12). "Do not try this at home: hacking your brain with electronics". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  46. ^ a b Antal, A.; Alekseichuk, I.; Bikson, M.; Brockmöller, J.; Brunoni, A. R.; Chen, R.; Cohen, L. G.; Dowthwaite, G.; Ellrich, J.; Flöel, A.; Fregni, F. (September 2017). "Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines". Clinical Neurophysiology. 128 (9): 1774–1809. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001. ISSN 1872-8952. PMC 5985830. PMID 28709880.

External links[edit]