Shock study: Mild electric stimulation boosts math ability
By Charlotte CAUSIT
Struggle with math? A gentle jolt to the brain might help.
A new study published Tuesday in PLOS Biology suggests that mild electrical stimulation can boost arithmetic performance -- and offers fresh insight into the brain mechanisms behind mathematical ability, along with a potential way to optimize learning.
The findings could eventually help narrow cognitive gaps and help build a more intellectually equitable society, the authors argue.
"Different people have different brains, and their brains control a lot in their life," said Roi Cohen Kadosh, a neuroscientist at the University of Surrey who led the research.
"We think about the environment -- if you go to the right school, if you have the right teacher -- but it's also our biology."
Cohen Kadosh and colleagues recruited 72 University of Oxford students, scanning their brains to measure connectivity between three key regions.
Participants then tackled math problems that required either calculating answers or recalling memorized solutions.
They found that stronger connections between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which governs executive function, and the posterior parietal cortex, involved in memory, predicted better calculation performance.
When the researchers applied a painless form of brain stimulation using electrode-fitted caps -- a technique known as transcranial random noise stimulation -- the low performers saw their scores jump by 25–29 percent.
The team believes the stimulation works by enhancing the excitability of neurons and interacting with GABA, a brain chemical that inhibits excessive activity -- effectively compensating for weak neural connectivity in some participants.
In fact, the stimulation helped underperformers reach or even surpass the scores of peers with naturally stronger brain wiring. But those who already performed well saw no benefit.
"Some people struggle with things, and if we can help their brain to fulfill their potential, we open them a lot of opportunities that otherwise would be closed," said Cohen Kadosh, calling it an "exciting time" for the field of brain stimulation research.
Still, he flagged a key ethical concern: the risk that such technologies could become more available to those with financial means, widening -- rather than closing -- access gaps.
He also urged the public not to try this at home. "Some people struggle with learning, and if our research proves successful beyond the lab, we could help them fulfil their ambitions and unlock opportunities that might otherwise remain out of reach."
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
01-07-2025
- Japan Today
Shock study: Mild electric stimulation boosts math ability
Findings from the study could help make society more intellectually equitable, its authors argue By Charlotte CAUSIT Struggle with math? A gentle jolt to the brain might help. A new study published Tuesday in PLOS Biology suggests that mild electrical stimulation can boost arithmetic performance -- and offers fresh insight into the brain mechanisms behind mathematical ability, along with a potential way to optimize learning. The findings could eventually help narrow cognitive gaps and help build a more intellectually equitable society, the authors argue. "Different people have different brains, and their brains control a lot in their life," said Roi Cohen Kadosh, a neuroscientist at the University of Surrey who led the research. "We think about the environment -- if you go to the right school, if you have the right teacher -- but it's also our biology." Cohen Kadosh and colleagues recruited 72 University of Oxford students, scanning their brains to measure connectivity between three key regions. Participants then tackled math problems that required either calculating answers or recalling memorized solutions. They found that stronger connections between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which governs executive function, and the posterior parietal cortex, involved in memory, predicted better calculation performance. When the researchers applied a painless form of brain stimulation using electrode-fitted caps -- a technique known as transcranial random noise stimulation -- the low performers saw their scores jump by 25–29 percent. The team believes the stimulation works by enhancing the excitability of neurons and interacting with GABA, a brain chemical that inhibits excessive activity -- effectively compensating for weak neural connectivity in some participants. In fact, the stimulation helped underperformers reach or even surpass the scores of peers with naturally stronger brain wiring. But those who already performed well saw no benefit. "Some people struggle with things, and if we can help their brain to fulfill their potential, we open them a lot of opportunities that otherwise would be closed," said Cohen Kadosh, calling it an "exciting time" for the field of brain stimulation research. Still, he flagged a key ethical concern: the risk that such technologies could become more available to those with financial means, widening -- rather than closing -- access gaps. He also urged the public not to try this at home. "Some people struggle with learning, and if our research proves successful beyond the lab, we could help them fulfil their ambitions and unlock opportunities that might otherwise remain out of reach." © 2025 AFP
Japan Today
29-04-2025
- Japan Today
Scientists sound alarm as Trump reshapes U.S. research landscape
By Charlotte CAUSIT A protest against massive cuts in federal research funding takes place on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on April 8, 2025 From cancer cures to climate change, President Donald Trump's administration has upended the American research landscape, threatening the United States' standing as a global science leader and sowing fear over jobs and funding. Mass layoffs at renowned federal agencies. Billions in research grants slashed. Open threats against universities. Bans on words linked to gender and human-caused global warming — all within the first 100 days. "It's just colossal," Paul Edwards, who leads a department at Stanford University focused on the interaction between society and science, told AFP. "I have not seen anything like this ever in the United States in my 40-year career." The sentiment is widely shared across the scientific and academic community. At the end of March, more than 1,900 leading elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, sounded an SOS in an open statement, warning that using financial threats to control which studies are funded or published amounted to censorship and undermines science's core mission: the quest for truth. "The nation's scientific enterprise is being decimated," they wrote, calling on the administration "to cease its wholesale assault" on U.S .science and urging members of the public to join them. Even during Trump's first term, the scientific community had warned of an impending assault on science, but by all accounts, today's actions are far more sweeping. "This is definitely bigger, more coordinated," said Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who described the administration as operating straight from the Project 2025 playbook. That ultra-conservative blueprint — closely followed by the Republican billionaire since returning to power — calls for restructuring or dismantling key scientific and academic institutions, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which it accuses of promoting "climate alarmism." Trump's officials have echoed these views, including Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic who has tapped into public distrust of science, amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The result, says Sheila Jasanoff, a professor at Harvard, is a breakdown of the tacit contract that once bound the state to the production of knowledge. Harvard, now a primary target in Trump's campaign against academia, has faced frozen grants, threats to its tax-exempt status, and potential limits on enrolling international students —- moves framed as combating antisemitism and "woke" ideology, but widely viewed as political overreach. "The rage against science, to me, is most reminiscent of a fundamentalist religious rage," Jasanoff told AFP. Generational damage Faced with this shift, a growing number of researchers are considering leaving the United States -- a potential brain drain from which other countries hope to benefit by opening the doors of their universities. In France, lawmakers have introduced a bill to create a special status for "scientific refugees." Some will leave, but many may simply give up, warns Daniel Sandweiss, a climate science professor at the University of Maine, who fears the loss of an entire generation of rising talent. "It's the rising students, the superstars who are just beginning to come up," he said, "and we're going to be missing a whole bunch of them." Many US industries — including pharmaceuticals — depend on this talent to drive innovation. But now, said Jones, "there's a real danger they'll fill those gaps with junk science and discredited researchers." One such figure is David Geier, an anti-vaccine activist previously found to have practiced medicine without a license, who has been appointed by Kennedy to study the debunked link between vaccines and autism -- a move critics say guarantees a biased result. "The level of disinformation and confusion this administration is creating will take years — potentially generations — to undo," said Jones. © 2025 AFP
Japan Times
03-12-2024
- Japan Times
Scientists behind ‘net zero' concept say nations are getting it wrong
Diplomats from 197 countries agreed earlier this month to new rules governing how they can buy and sell credits to neutralize carbon emissions. But while they were deliberating, some of the biggest names in climate science, who defined "net zero' in 2009, found something wrong with the math underlying those debates. "Achieving 'net zero' no longer means what we meant by it,' said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at University of Oxford, one of the authors of a new paper published last month in the journal Nature. Their new analysis skewers an assumption at the heart of how countries and companies track emissions — that a ton of carbon dioxide is the same everywhere, whether it's dispersed in the atmosphere, embedded in forest wood or pulled from the air and pumped deep underground forever. That fungibility is the foundation of carbon markets. It lets a ton of CO2 in a forest stand as a fair trade for a ton put in the atmosphere. That rule-of-thumb turns out to be a vast oversimplification that could render many well-meaning net-zero efforts meaningless. The confusion stems from a basic fact about how the Earth's carbon cycle works: Scientists know what humanity emits into the atmosphere doesn't entirely stay in the atmosphere. Less than half of that total stays in the atmosphere on average. The rest flows into the land and ocean. To keep track of all that carbon — and how they assign responsibility for removing it — scientists keep two ledgers, one for nature and one for humanity. All the CO2 absorbed every year into land, trees and water is a service the planet offers to wash humanity's past CO2 emissions out of the air. So, these carbon drawdowns go into the nature ledger. It's important to emphasize that land and oceans are drawing down past emissions. That means they cannot be relied on to also neutralize future emissions. This is where the revelation comes in: Countries may have been double counting. In other words, it's redundant for countries to claim credit for CO2 for work already being done by land and oceans. Those emissions are already spoken for. "We can't count on them (emissions) to do two jobs at once. That's the point,' Allen said. "If we're going to count on them to mop up our historical emissions ... we can't at the same time use them to offset future fossil fuel emissions.' These differences between natural and industrial bookkeeping add up. For example, Allen said, consider a situation in which — using current carbon accounting — the world was expected to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The flaws in accounting are so significant that they could be concealing another 0.5 C rise. (Allen is also chair of the advisory board of a carbon registry.) There are consequences of this accounting mismatch. The first is, it increases the urgency to stop burning fossil fuels, the authors write, or to capture and bury pollution with emerging methods. The climate that humanity grew up in relied on millions of years of coal, oil and gas sitting underground. The main solution therefore is to leave it there, capture the carbon from smokestacks and permanently bury it, or clean it out of the open air. Returning carbon underground is "geological net zero,' and it's what the authors originally had in mind in 2009. No countries are currently pursuing it. Separate from fossil fuel burning and carbon capturing, they write, nature must be left alone, to passively soak up history's CO2. And all that land needs to be conserved, undeveloped, to keep the carbon out of the atmosphere and pull down even more. Rich countries bear historic responsibility for ensuring that happens, they write. As if this weren't complicated enough, there is more to the story than two ledgers, with past carbon falling into nature and future carbon captured and stashed underground. That's because there is value to human management of land that reduces atmospheric CO2. In other words, if "managed land' is proven to take down CO2 then those tons can be counted against emissions, the scientists say. What "managed land' means is a headache to pin down. Countries have no uniform standard, and often claim all of their land as managed. In fact, so much land is claimed that their combined pledges are virtually impossible to foresee happening. They may be taking credit for emissions already in nature's ledger. There are other reasons why storing carbon in the biosphere is inferior to geological storage, they write. As wildfires continue to show every year, there's nothing permanent about living things. In 2023, the hottest year on record, trees and land absorbed virtually no carbon. Any potential slowdown in the land and ocean carbon sponges would leave a greater amount sitting in the atmosphere, further aggravating warming. Scrutiny of private carbon markets has led noteworthy players to exit and others to focus on cutting emissions directly. Those speed bumps mean that voluntary carbon markets are ahead of governments in thinking about the problem in some ways, according to Sassan Saatchi, co-founder and CEO of CTrees, a scientific nonprofit that wants to "track carbon in every tree on the planet.' Saatchi called the paper "a timely warning' even as fixing the problem "is a difficult thing to ask countries to really abide by. The scientific community has to have much better recommendations.' The paper pulls together into one place a number of concerns scientists have accumulated about land use and carbon accounting, said Pamela McElwee, a Rutgers University professor and contributor to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That includes separating how everyone accounts for natural and industrial CO2 drawdown. Countries should be able deduct CO2 that's drawn down permanently, back into the Earth, from their gross fossil-fuel emissions. But carbon absorbed by land and oceans doesn't count as "geological net zero,' and should not be credited against emissions. "It really needs to be apples to apples and so let's treat it that way,' she said. It's difficult to contemplate any reforms that might take already limited funding away from forest management. "If I could be assured that we could do both those things simultaneously' — reach geological net zero and preserve natural drawdown — "that would be ideal.'
