ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Can electrical brain stimulation really make you better at math–and is it less painful than learning calculus?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



difficulty with math electical stimulationA light electrical current just above the right ear seems to improve numerical learning for at least six months, according to a new study. But if the current is moved to the left side, average peoples’ ability to learn basic numerical principles plummets.

The group behind the new study, led by Roi Cohen Kadosh, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Oxford’s Department of Experimental Psychology, found that 20 minutes of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDSC) trained on a particular place on the scalp—coupled with training sessions—boosted healthy adults’ ability to learn and use nine new numerical symbols (though it did not seem to affect manipulation of familiar numbers).

Researchers think that the electrical pulses are triggering molecular changes in the brain, such as neurotransmitters and their receptors—especially those involved in learning. Stimulation was targeted to the two parietal lobes, which are known to be involved in sensory, perceptual and numerical processing.

Previous work by other groups has shown that TDCS to seems to improve memory in some patients, but as Cohen Kadosh points out, those experiments targeted a different part of the brain than his team’s research.

For the new experiment, Cohen Kadosh and his colleagues assigned 15 healthy adult subjects into one of three different groups: one received 20 minutes of TDSC to the right parietal lobe, another got 20 minutes of TDSC (at a current of one milliamp) on the left parietal lobe, and a third received only 30 seconds of electrical stimulation in a procedure to act as the control group. (The procedure is relatively painless, Cohen Kadosh explains, and subjects only notice a slight tingling for 15 to 30 seconds and then acclimate to the sensation and cease to notice it, thus making the sham group a fairly reliable control in this case.)

In the midst of the electric stimulation pulses, each group underwent a 90-120 minute training session six days in which they were to learn a new group of symbols and their relative value (without the symbols being explicitly equated to known numbers). After each training session, the subjects were then tested with different tasks, such as lining the values up in order, to assess progress in learning the new symbols. The group that got juiced along their right parietal lobe learned the symbols more thoroughly than the sham group—and much more thoroughly than the group that got the left parietal lobe treatment, which showed little to no learning at all. And after bringing the right parietal lobe group back into the lab six months later, the researchers found that subjects had maintained their newfound (if fictitious)  numeracy. The findings were published online November 4 in Current Biology.

But why not test the procedure with real numbers? "I cannot take an adult who already knows how to process numbers in a normal way" and try to assess their ability to learn the skills anew, Cohen Kadosh explains. Novel mathematical symbols can help mimic the process of learning basic numerical concepts.

Cohen Kadosh and his colleagues note that a TDCS brain boost could help children who are struggling to learn early number skills or adults who have lost that function through stroke or even age-related cognitive decline.

Thus far, the procedure showed no negative side effects, nor did it seem to drain other mental resources, Cohen Kadosh says. "But before we’re going to apply it to children and make it a therapeutic tool for adults, we want to take a really good, careful look at it."

The treatment could also someday possibly be helpful for the 6 percent or so of healthy adults with severe developmental dyscalculia (a diagnosis for people who have trouble with basic number-based logic) or the 20-odd percent of people who have some innumeracy. These difficulties can include problems counting change or adding single digit numbers, Cohen Kadosh explains, "they’re using their fingers" and other "very immature strategies to solve this task."

What about those of us who just feel so-so about our competence with calculus? Is an appointment with a magic math-skills stimulator going to be an option for us—or our offspring? It is unclear if this procedure can improve the everyday math skills of average adults. In fact, when the researchers tested the subjects’ real-number manipulation abilities on the last day of TDCS-boosted training, they found no change in any of the groups. So the cranial charge might best address the most basic apprehension of number relationships, rather than zapping a normal student to Newton-level numeracy.

Many people have also debated the broader merits of brain-boosting strategies. "There are a lot of ethical questions—whether it is justified or not and whether people with average mathematical abilities can use tools for cognitive enhancement," Cohen Kadosh says. Those are "questions that the public—and scientists—should deal with." But in the end, perhaps it will be a simple calculation of broader reward: perhaps electrical juicing for someone with average or above average numerical abilities to begin with would allow them to become a super-scientist, Cohen Kadosh says, resulting in someone who "would be able to contribute to the society where we live and make it a better place."

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/dra_schwartz





Rights & Permissions

Comments 6 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. scarface 9:00 am 11/5/2010

    Back in the 60′s I decided to crash learn everything in CALCULUS I. I took a bottle of Jack Daniels [ for sipping] and closeted myself with the Textbook for 48 hours. After that I took the Final Exam and got a 100. Even had the math department trying to convince me to change my major from EE to Math. Point- there is more than one way to stimulate…

    Link to this
  2. 2. katesisco 1:11 pm 11/5/2010

    As the above comment shows, this is not new. The only pronged helmet in history found in an English bog has antenna receivers not ‘horns’ as commonly described.
    The important point here is that the OPPOSITE CURRENT scrambles learning. In as much as the Nobel was created out of sorrow for the inventions application to warfare and not the betterment of society, how do you think this is going to affect society? A reading of Celtic & ancient Egyptian society shows this knowledge. A falcon-headed snake? A ram-headed snake? Look at a 3D of the brain stem, hippocampi, & amydala. My knol: http://knol.google.com/k/kathleen-sisco/boskops-the-brain/2cg23zl4o17qt/37#

    Link to this
  3. 3. litchik 2:22 pm 11/5/2010

    It is a common misconception that Alfred Nobel created the prize out of a sense of guilt almost as common as the idea that he created Dynamite for warfare. He did, in fact, create the prizes for the betterment of human kind and they reflected his passions in scientific research and peace.

    Scientific research, as described in the article, is repeatable, peer reviewed and controlled. There is no faith or reinterpretation of ancient texts. (see J. Coyne on claims the Koran explains the cardiovascular system: http://www.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)

    Smoke less, read more.

    Link to this
  4. 4. reflectogenesis 4:33 pm 11/6/2010

    This is very strange – almost deja-vu because 35 years ago a good thump around the left ear from my math teacher had a strikingly similar similar effect on me.
    Don’t tell him though because he will get a Taser.
    Peter Reynolds
    Reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk

    Link to this
  5. 5. learnquran 2:58 am 11/9/2010

    Everything small and large explain in detail in Quran. Quran is the only book which guide us towards principal on nature. http://www.learnquranonline.net

    Link to this
  6. 6. cosmoblivion 7:11 pm 11/11/2010

    This has probably already been pointed out…..
    but the sample size is only 45 subjects.
    This small size makes this study mildly interesting
    but hardly worth spending much energy getting excited over.
    Many more studies to go yet!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X