ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2017
The Social Context of "Do-It-Yourself" Brain Stimulation: Neurohackers, Biohackers, and Lifehackers.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain-Hype and For-Profit Medical Devices.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Long-term use of tDCS-clinical and ethical considerations.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Invasive Brain-Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- An Educational Program for Remote Training and Supervision of Home-Based Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2024Article
- When Two Become One: Singular Duos and the Neuroethical Frontiers of Brain-to-Brain Interfaces.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024Article
- Reverse effect of home-use binaural beats brain stimulation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study.BioSocieties · 2023Article
- Pioneering neurohackers: between egocentric human enhancement and altruistic sacrifice.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Promissory Visions of DIYbio: Reimaging Science from the Fringe.Science as culture · 2022Article
- Diversifying the Bioethics Funding Landscape: The Case of TMS.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2022Article
- Mapping the Landscape of Do-it-Yourself Medicine.Citizen science : theory and practice · 2022Article
- [Cybersecurity of brain-computer interfaces].International cybersecurity law review · 2022Article
- "A cohort of pirate ships": biomedical citizen scientists' attitudes toward ethical oversight.Citizen science : theory and practice · 2021Article
- Neurochips: Considerations from a neurosurgeon's standpoint.Surgical neurology international · 2021Article
- Realizing Present and Future Promise of DIY Biology and Medicine through a Trust Architecture.The Hastings Center report · 2020Article
- Citizen Neuroscience: Brain-Computer Interface Researcher Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Brain Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Bioengineering horizon scan 2020.eLife · 2020Article
- Understanding the Scope of Do-It-Yourself Fecal Microbiota Transplant.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- "Self-Neuroenhancement": The Last Frontier of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation?Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2020Article
- Human enhancement through the lens of experimental and speculative neurotechnologies.Human behavior and emerging technologies · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "do-it-yourself" (DIY) brain stimulation movement began in earnest in late 2011, when lay individuals began building stimulation devices and applying low levels of electricity to their heads for self-improvement purposes. To date, scholarship on the home use of brain stimulation has focused on characterizing the practices of users via quantitative and qualitative studies, and on analyzing related ethical and regulatory issues. In this perspective piece, however, I take the opposite approach: rather than viewing the home use of brain stimulation on its own, I argue that it must be understood within the context of other DIY and citizen science movements. Seen in this light, the home use of brain stimulation is only a small part of the "neurohacking" movement, which is comprised of individuals attempting to optimize their brains to achieve enhanced performance. Neurohacking itself is an offshoot of the "life hacking" (or "quantified self") movement, in which individuals self-track minute aspects of their daily lives in order to enhance productivity or performance. Additionally, the home or DIY use of brain stimulation is in many ways parallel to the DIY Biology (or "biohacking") movement, which seeks to democratize tools of scientific experimentation. Here, I describe the place of the home use of brain stimulation with regard to neurohackers, lifehackers, and biohackers, and suggest that a policy approach for the home use of brain stimulation should have an appreciation both of individual motivations as well as the broader social context of the movement itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.