When "altering brain function" becomes "mind control"

The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Anorexia Nervosa: A Narrative Review

(1) Introduction: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a severe, debilitating disease with high incidence and high mortality. The methods of treatment used so far are moderately effective. Evidence from neuroimaging studies helps to design modern methods of therapy. One of them is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain neuromodulation technique. (2) Methods: The purpose of this narrative review is to bring together all studies investigating the use of tDCS in the treatment of AN and to evaluate its effect and efficiency. Searches were conducted in the Pubmed/Medline, Research Gate, and Cochrane databases. (3) Results: The literature search resulted in five articles. These studies provide preliminary evidence that tDCS has the potential to alter eating behaviour, body weight, and food intake. Additionally, tDCS reduced symptoms of depression. Throughout all trials, stimulation targeted the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Although the number of studies included is limited, attempts were made to elucidate the potential mechanisms underlying tDCS action in individuals with AN. Recommendations for future tDCS research in AN were issued. (4) Conclusions: The included studies have shown that tDCS stimulation of the left DLPFC has a positive effect on AN clinical symptoms and may improve them, as measured by various assessment measures. It is important to conduct more in-depth research on the potential benefits of using tDCS for treating AN. This should entail well-designed studies incorporating advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI. The aim is to gain a better understanding of how tDCS works in AN.

Advances in problematic usage of the internet research - A narrative review by experts from the European network for problematic usage of the internet

Global concern about problematic usage of the internet (PUI), and its public health and societal costs, continues to grow, sharpened in focus under the privations of the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative review reports the expert opinions of members of the largest international network of researchers on PUI in the framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action (CA 16207), on the scientific progress made and the critical knowledge gaps remaining to be filled as the term of the Action reaches its conclusion. A key advance has been achieving consensus on the clinical definition of various forms of PUI. Based on the overarching public health principles of protecting individuals and the public from harm and promoting the highest attainable standard of health, the World Health Organisation has introduced several new structured diagnoses into the ICD-11, including gambling disorder, gaming disorder, compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, and other unspecified or specified disorders due to addictive behaviours, alongside naming online activity as a diagnostic specifier. These definitions provide for the first time a sound platform for developing systematic networked research into various forms of PUI at global scale. Progress has also been made in areas such as refining and simplifying some of the available assessment instruments, clarifying the underpinning brain-based and social determinants, and building more empirically based etiological models, as a basis for therapeutic intervention, alongside public engagement initiatives. However, important gaps in our knowledge remain to be tackled. Principal among these include a better understanding of the course and evolution of the PUI-related problems, across different age groups, genders and other specific vulnerable groups, reliable methods for early identification of individuals at risk (before PUI becomes disordered), efficacious preventative and therapeutic interventions and ethical health and social policy changes that adequately safeguard human digital rights. The paper concludes with recommendations for achievable research goals, based on longitudinal analysis of a large multinational cohort co-designed with public stakeholders.

Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics.

METHODS

We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source.

RESULTS

Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.

Neurostimulation in Clinical and Sub-clinical Eating Disorders: A Systematic Update of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Whilst psychological therapies are the main approach to treatment of eating disorders (EDs), advances in aetiological research suggest the need for the development of more targeted, brain-focused treatments. A range of neurostimulation approaches, most prominently repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS), are rapidly emerging as potential novel interventions. We have previously reviewed these techniques as potential treatments of EDs.

AIM

To provide an update of the literature examining the effects of DBS, rTMS and tDCS on eating behaviours, body weight and associated symptoms in people with EDs and relevant analogue populations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed articles in PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO from 1st January 2013 until 14th August 2017, to update our earlier search. Studies assessing the effects of neurostimulation techniques on eating and weight-related outcomes in people with EDs and relevant analogue populations were included. Data from both searches were combined.

RESULTS

We included a total of 32 studies (526 participants); of these, 18 were newly identified by our update search. Whilst findings are somewhat mixed for bulimia nervosa, neurostimulation techniques have shown potential in the treatment of other EDs, in terms of reduction of ED and associated symptoms. Studies exploring cognitive, neural, and hormonal correlates of these techniques are also beginning to appear.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation approaches show promise as treatments for EDs. As yet, large wellconducted randomised controlled trials are lacking. More information is needed about treatment targets, stimulation parameters and mechanisms of action.

Neuromodulation and neurofeedback treatments in eating disorders and obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Psychological interventions are the treatment of choice for most eating disorders; however, significant proportions of patients do not recover with these. Advances in understanding of the neurobiology of eating disorders have led to the development of targeted treatments, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), and neurofeedback. We review the emerging clinical evidence for the use of these interventions in eating disorders and obesity, together with their theoretical rationale. Finally, we reflect on future developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last 20 months, seven case studies/series and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NIBS or neurofeedback in different eating disorders, obesity, or food craving have appeared. These have largely had promising results. One NIBS trial, using a multisession protocol, was negative. A case series of subcallosal DBS in anorexia nervosa has also shown promise. A search of trial registries identified a further 21 neuromodulation/feedback studies in progress, indicating that neuromodulation/feedback is an area of growing interest.

SUMMARY

At present, neuromodulation and neurofeedback are largely experimental interventions; however, growing understanding of the mechanisms involved, together with the rising number of studies in this area, means that the clinical utility of these interventions is likely to become clearer soon.

The Medicalization of Love

In 2015, we published an article entitled "The Medicalization of Love," in which we argued that both good and bad consequences could be expected to follow from love's medicalization, depending on how the process unfolded. A flurry of commentaries followed; here we offer some preliminary thoughts in reply to the more substantial of the criticisms that were raised. We focus in particular on the nature of love itself as well as the role it plays (or should play) in our lives; we also touch on a number of practical issues concerning the likely effects of any plausible "real-life" love drugs and conclude with a call for careful regulation.