Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21220723›Full record

ReviewNeurology2011

Rethinking the thinking cap: ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation.

Roy Hamilton, Samuel Messing, Anjan Chatterjee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Rectifying disordered brain dynamics to improve cognition in schizophrenia.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roy HamiltonDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. royhhamilton@yahoo.com
Samuel Messing
Anjan Chatterjee

Funding

CONCEPTS AND LANGUAGER01DC004817 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CHATTERJEE, ANJAN K · 2002 to 2006
$1.7M
Spatial language in normal and aphasic subjectsR01DC008779 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CHATTERJEE, ANJAN K · 2007 to 2011
$1.6M
TMS to explore interhemispheric interactions and to treat aphasia and neglectK01NS060995 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HAMILTON, ROY H · 2008 to 2012
$802k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004817NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008779NINDS NIH HHS 1K01NS060995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although a growing body of evidence suggests that noninvasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation have the capacity to enhance neural function in both brain-injured and neurally intact individuals, the implications of their potential use for cosmetic self-enhancement have not been fully explored. We review 3 areas in which noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to enhance neurologic function: cognitive skills, mood, and social cognition. We then characterize the ethical problems that affect the practice of cosmetic neurology, including safety, character, justice, and autonomy, and discuss how these problems may apply to the use of noninvasive brain stimulation for self-enhancement.

Indexed as

AffectCognitionSocial BehaviorBiomedical EnhancementElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansIndividualityTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID21220723
PMCPMC3030230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.