Stimulating the criminal brain: Different effects of prefrontal tDCS in criminal offenders and controls

Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: implications of the extended mind thesis

The possibility of neurotechnological interference with our brain and mind raises questions about the moral rights that would protect against the (mis)use of these technologies. One such moral right that has received recent attention is the right to mental integrity. Though the metaphysical boundaries of the mind are a matter of live debate, most defences of this moral right seem to assume an internalist (brain-based) view of the mind. In this article, we will examine what an extended account of the mind might imply for the right to mental integrity and the protection it provides against neurotechnologies. We argue that, on an extended account of the mind, the scope of the right to mental integrity would expand significantly, implying that neurotechnologies would no longer pose a uniquely serious threat to the right. In addition, some neurotechnologies may even be protected by the right to mental integrity, as the technologies would become part of the mind. We conclude that adopting an extended account of the mind has significant implications for the right to mental integrity in terms of its protective scope and capacity to protect against neurotechnologies, demonstrating that metaphysical assumptions about the mind play an important role in determining the moral protection provided by the right.

Prefrontal tDCS modulates risk-taking in male violent offenders

Detrimental decision-making is a major problem among violent offenders. Non-invasive brain stimulation offers a promising method to directly influence decision-making and has already been shown to modulate risk-taking in non-violent controls. We hypothesize that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex beneficially modulates the neural and behavioral correlates of risk-taking in a sample of violent offenders. We expect offenders to show more risky decision-making than non-violent controls and that prefrontal tDCS will induce stronger changes in the offender group. In the current study, 22 male violent offenders and 24 male non-violent controls took part in a randomized double-blind sham-controlled cross-over study applying tDCS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Subsequently, participants performed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Violent offenders showed significantly less optimal decision-making compared to non-violent controls. Active tDCS increased prefrontal activity and improved decision-making only in violent offenders but not in the control group. Also, in offenders only, prefrontal tDCS influenced functional connectivity between the stimulated area and other brain regions such as the thalamus. These results suggest baseline dependent effects of tDCS and pave the way for treatment options of disadvantageous decision-making behavior in this population.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation affect explicit but not implicit emotion regulation: a meta-analysis

Emotion regulation (ER) refers to the process through which people influence the occurrence, experience, and expression of emotions. It can be established in an explicit (voluntary) or implicit (automatic) way, both of which are essential for mental and physical well-being. Recent evidence has highlighted the potential of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting the prefrontal cortex (PFC) to modulate ER. However, previous studies have only evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS on explicit ER, leaving implicit ER relatively unexplored. In this review and meta-analysis, we systematically evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS over the PFC on the two forms of ER, using both subjective and physiological response as outcome indicators. Twenty-seven studies were included in our study. Both subjective (Hedges' g = - 0.20) and physiological (Hedges' g = - 0.65) results indicated a significant effect of TMS and tDCS targeting PFC on down-regulation of explicit ER, but not implicit ER (Hedges' g = - 0.04). Moreover, moderation analysis indicated that the effect of TMS and tDCS on the down-regulating of subjective experience was moderated by several factors, including stimulation method, target area, target hemisphere, and stimulation timing. Specifically, our results showed that applying TMS or targeting the right PFC, particularly the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, or using offline TMS and tDCS produced a larger stimulation effect on ER. In summary, these findings suggest that TMS and tDCS has a positive effect on explicit, but not implicit ER. The distinct TMS and tDCS effect on the two forms of ER help deepen our understanding of TMS and tDCS use and provide valuable insights for the development of tailored TMS and tDCS protocols for explicit and implicit regulation.

Personal insult disrupts regulatory brain networks in violent offenders

The failure to adequately regulate negative emotions represents a prominent characteristic of violent offenders. In this functional magnetic resonance imaging study, we used technical, nonsocial frustration to elicit anger in violent offenders (n = 19) and then increased the provocation by adding personal insults (social provocation). The aim was to investigate neural connectivity patterns involved in anger processing, to detect the effect of increasing provocation by personal insult, and to compare anger-related connectivity patterns between offenders and noncriminal controls (n = 12). During technical frustration, the offenders showed increased neural connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex compared to the controls. Conversely, personal insults, and thus increased levels of provocation, resulted in a significant reduction of neural connectivity between regions involved in cognitive control in the offenders but not controls. We conclude that, when (nonsocially) frustrated, offenders were able to employ regulatory brain networks by displaying stronger connectivity between regulatory prefrontal and limbic regions than noncriminal controls. In addition, offenders seemed particularly sensitive to personal insults, which led to increased implicit aggression (by means of motoric responses) and reduced connectivity in networks involved in cognitive control (including dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, precuneus, middle/superior temporal regions).

Non-invasive neuromodulation can reduce aggressive behaviors in humans: A critical perspective

Containing aggressive behavior is an ongoing challenge in modern society. Aggressiveness is a multi-level construct that can be driven by emotions (reactive aggression) or can be "cold-blooded" and goal-directed (proactive). Aggressive behavior could arise because of a misjudgment of others' intentions or can follow frontal brain lesions leading to a reduction of impulse control and emotion regulation. In the last few years, interventional and basic research studies adopting Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) have significantly risen. Those techniques have been used both in healthy people, to better understand the role of certain brain regions in psychological processes, and in aggressive subjects to improve their symptoms. From an overview of the literature, focusing on the paper that uses transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to reduce aggressiveness, it emerges that tDCS can (i) enhance facial emotion expression recognition, (ii) improve impulses control, and (iii) affect approach/withdrawal motivation. The current work shows the strengths and weaknesses of tDCS intervention on aggressive individuals, suggesting that this instrument could be adopted on violent people, and paves the way for intervention in some applied settings such as prison.