There are devices that are both tcds and tms that lower the action potential in various parts of the brain to treat illnesses, improve cognition, etc. So what about the opposite, are there interventions that can increase the threshold of action potential in parts of the brain to make those neurons fire more slowly? If so, what therapeutic (both psychological and physical) would those kinds of interventions hold?
It is my understanding that the ratio of activity in the left and right prefrontal cortex can influence moods. The more activity in the left and the less in the right = higher emotional states. So lowering the action potential in the left and raising it in the right could be a treatment for depression. Using TMS on the left prefrontal cortex is used to treat depression. I know there are some devices that use TCDS on both the left and right prefrontal cortex to increase cognition. But I don’t know if anything can be done to increase the action potential in various parts of the brain for therapeutic purposes.
I do not think you have an accurate grasp of the concept of “action potential” as used in neuroscience. Most of your post seems to be based on woo, and is largely gibberish. It is true that TMS can be used to treat depression, although I do not think the mechanism by which it works is well understood. Certainly it is not a matter of “lowering the action potential in the left [prefrontal cortex] and raising it in the right”, which is meaningless.
It is a pretty good rule of thumb that people who make an issue about the difference between the left and right brain (unless, perhaps, they are talking strictly about language processing) are generally either charlatans or their dupes.
What have you been reading? I thought you were too smart a guy to fall for this sort of stuff.
Well, nothing about action potentials changing there, and my nose still picks up a strong whiff of woot. The following is from the editor’s talk page at your link:
Probably, but even if not, it is still a good rule of thumb.
Also, Google can probably find you a peer reviewed paper or two somewhere or other supporting just about any whacky idea you can imagine. When it is 100 papers, there may be something in it.
Well, I didn’t read all 17,000 scholarly articles for lateral asymmetric hemisphere activation and depression - but every single one I read supported the OP.
You questioned the OP like he was reading something other than what is supported by scientific studies - implying it has been studied and is simply not supported.
Do you have any data so support your position that all of these scientists are wrong?