Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Model. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Cadaver study casts doubts on how zapping brain may boost mood, relieve pain

By Emily Underwood
Science
Originally posted April 20, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Buzsáki expects a living person’s skin would shunt even more current away from the brain because it is better hydrated than a cadaver’s scalp. He agrees, however, that low levels of stimulation may have subtle effects on the brain that fall short of triggering neurons to fire. Electrical stimulation might also affect glia, brain cells that provide neurons with nutrients, oxygen, and protection from pathogens, and also can influence the brain’s electrical activity. “Further questions should be asked” about whether 1- to 2-milliamp currents affect those cells, he says.

Buzsáki, who still hopes to use such techniques to enhance memory, is more restrained than some critics. The tDCS field is “a sea of bullshit and bad science—and I say that as someone who has contributed some of the papers that have put gas in the tDCS tank,” says neuroscientist Vincent Walsh of University College London. “It really needs to be put under scrutiny like this.”

The article is here.

Editor's note:

This article represents the importance of science in the treatment of human suffering. No one wants sham interventions.

However, the stimulation interventions may work, and work effectively, in light of other models of how the brain functions. The brain creates an electromagnetic field that moves beyond the skull.  If the cadaver's brain is shut off, this finding may be irrelevant as the stimulation affects the field that moves beyond the skull.  In other words, how these stimulation procedures influence the electromagnetic field of the brain may be a better model to explain improvement.

Therefore, using dead people to nullify what happens in living people may not be the best standard to evaluate a procedure when researching brain activity.  It is a step to consider and may help develop a better working model of what actually happens with TMS.

By the way, scientists are not exactly certain how lithium or antidepressants work, either.

Monday, February 9, 2015

From moral concern to moral constraint

By Fiery Cushman
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Available online 17 January 2015

Abstract

Current research into the neural basis of moral decision-making endorses a common theme: The mechanisms we use to make value-guided decisions concerning each other are remarkably similar to those we use to make value-guided decisions for ourselves. In other words, moral decisions are just another kind of ordinary decision. Yet, there is something unsettling about this conclusion: We often feel as if morality places an absolute constraint on our behavior, in a way unlike ordinary personal concerns. What is the neural and psychological basis of this feeling of moral constraint? Several models are considered and outstanding questions highlighted.

Highlights

• Morality involves concern for others, and constraints on action.
• Our concern for others is processed similarly to our concern for ourselves.
• Much less is understood about the neural basis of our sense of ‘constraint’.
• Some evidence favors a role for model-free value representation.
• Some evidence favors a role for mechanisms of third party evaluation.

The entire article is here.