Today, there are many neurotechnologies that can read what is going on in our brains and even modify the way they operate and change the connections within them.
Currently, there are many "non-invasive" treatments that work from outside the brain and claim to do the above. But if we can "access" a person's brain, even if the technology doesn't require piercing the skull, how "non-invasive" can it be? The non-invasive here includes physical and psychological.
This is something I’ve been thinking about, in part because I just started reading a book called “Fighting for Your Brain,” by Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University, whose research focuses on the ethical and legal challenges that new technologies may pose to society.
In the book, Farahani describes the potential impact of technologies that allow us to peer into the minds of others. Neuroscientists have used brain imaging techniques to try to detect a person's ideological and political leanings, or to predict whether a prisoner is likely to reoffend. This sounds likely to be traumatic, or somewhat invasive.
(Source: Pixabay)
Robyn Bluhm of Michigan State University in the United States and her colleagues asked patients, doctors, and other unrelated members of the public who had undergone brain activity-related treatments, and they found that people have different definitions of invasiveness.
Generally, in a medical sense, invasive treatment refers to a treatment that leaves some kind of incision on the skin. A typical example is Deep Brain Stimulation. It implants electrodes deep in the brain to stimulate neurons and control how brain regions fire.
I once interviewed a man who voluntarily had 14 electrodes implanted in his brain in order to understand and treat depression. He underwent brain surgery and was conscious as doctors probed his brain to find the "sweet spot" to place these electrodes.
During the 10 days the man was hospitalized, he had several wires sticking out of his brain and his head was kept in bandages. This is certainly an invasive procedure.
Before signing up, he had tried many other treatments, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This is a non-invasive treatment that uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain to improve depression. It would place a device shaped like a figure-eight on a person's head, delivering magnetic pulses to various parts of the brain and interfering with its activity. TMS is generally considered non-invasive.
But is this true? In Bloom's survey, responses varied.
Some people believe that treatments that require multiple visits to the doctor's office are invasive because they interfere with a person's schedule. Others believe device-based therapy is less invasive than traditional talk-based therapy because they don't have to tell their stories to strangers. But others say they think TMS is invasive because of its effects on the brain.
The effects can spread throughout the brain. Non-invasive forms of brain stimulation are theoretically designed to target specific areas, such as those involved in emotion. But Nick Davis of Manchester Metropolitan University in England points out that when you stimulate the brain through the skull, it's impossible to pinpoint a tiny area.
If TMS can help treat chronic pain, depression, or symptoms of Parkinson's disease, it must be causing some kind of change in the brain, perhaps in the way signaling molecules are produced, or in the way brain circuits connect or fire, or some other mechanism.
Given that we still don’t really understand how TMS works, it’s hard to know what, if any, long-term effects these changes will have on the brain.
If treatment changes the way a person's brain works, is it invasive? Maybe it depends on the impact of the change. We know that "non-invasive" forms of brain stimulation can cause headaches, convulsions and potential seizures. Electroconvulsive therapy, which delivers higher intensity electrical stimulation, is designed to trigger seizures and may cause memory loss.
This can be very painful for some people. After all, our memories make us who we are. This is another concern about brain-modifying technology, which has the potential to change our personalities. Doctors have noticed that some people who undergo (invasive) deep brain stimulation to treat Parkinson's disease do experience temporary behavioral changes. For example, they may become more impulsive or irritable.
Of course, non-invasive stimulation is unlikely to be that obvious, but where is the line – and what counts as “invasive”?
This is an important question. Treatments that are considered invasive are often viewed as riskier and are reserved for people who have no other options. Nir Lipsman, a neurosurgeon at the University of Toronto in Canada, and colleagues say treatments considered too invasive may never be used or even studied.
Interestingly, more invasive treatments are often thought to be more effective, mostly due to wishful thinking. As scientists point out, this may be why injecting a placebo is more effective than taking a placebo pill. At the same time, we risk overlooking the potential risks of treatment modalities that are considered non-invasive.
Support: Ren
Original text:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/23/1065862/brain-stimulation-invasive/
If treatment changes the way a person's brain works, is it invasive? Maybe it depends on the impact of the change. We know that "non-invasive" forms of brain stimulation can cause headaches, convulsions and potential seizures. Electroconvulsive therapy, which delivers higher intensity electrical stimulation, is designed to trigger seizures and may cause memory loss.
This can be very painful for some people. After all, our memories make us who we are. This is another concern about brain-modifying technology, which has the potential to change our personalities. Doctors have noticed that some people who undergo (invasive) deep brain stimulation to treat Parkinson's disease do experience temporary behavioral changes. For example, they may become more impulsive or irritable.
Of course, non-invasive stimulation is unlikely to be that obvious, but where is the line – and what counts as “invasive”?
This is an important question. Treatments that are considered invasive are often viewed as riskier and are reserved for people who have no other options. Nir Lipsman, a neurosurgeon at the University of Toronto in Canada, and colleagues say treatments considered too invasive may never be used or even studied.
Interestingly, more invasive treatments are often thought to be more effective, mostly due to wishful thinking. As scientists point out, this may be why injecting a placebo is more effective than taking a placebo pill. At the same time, we risk overlooking the potential risks of treatment modalities that are considered non-invasive.
Support: Ren
Original text:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/23/1065862/brain-stimulation-invasive/
