But read the whole article to hear Nathan’s perspective on the paper that created a deluge of negative media.
This is very, very different from the montages that have been used in studies of cognitive enhancement in the past (and the most common ones used by the DIY community), which typically use an anode placed near some site on the prefrontal cortex and another either placed on the same region on the other side of the head, above the eye on the other side of the head, or somewhere on the contralateral body below the neck (to generate a montage with only one site with high current density). The authors explain why they wanted to stimulate both sides simultaneously (complex tasks engage large regions of the frontal cortex, therefore they thought stimulating a large area would be desirable. Oddly, they even mention the more conventional way of doing this (an F3-F4 montage), but never explain why they decided against it.
Here’s the link: http://quicktotheratcave.tumblr.com/post/118626633628/why-your-brain-stimulator-is-probably-not-making
Great analysis of the weaknesses of the original article. Nathan is on point.
Can you post the link to Nathan Whitmore’s article?
Thanks, and Romeo too for posting the link. Don’t know how that slipped by me. Will add to the body of the post as well.