Modulation of Resting-State Brain Complexity After Bilateral Cerebellar Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: a Randomized Controlled Trial Study – So this is pretty close to my original cerebellar “kick” montage, the difference being it requires a five to ten minute “prime” doing cathodal stimulation on the cerebellum first, then switching to anodal stimulation. I’m guessing it’s just a bit too complicated because it requires four switches (using non-HD), but it’s really solid. Still not sold on the idea that bilateral stimulation is a good idea, the idea with the “kick” montage is that we are goosing the entire cortical pathway between the cerebellum and cerebrum.
Anodal cerebellar stimulation increases cortical activation: Evidence for cerebellar scaffolding of cortical processing – A theory about why the “kick” montage appears more consistently effective than others. One thing that’s annoying is that most of these papers are still focused on short term/immediate effect based around the idea that the electricity itself is the basis of intercellular communication instead of the electrical current juicing the mechanical work done in the RNA methlyation process.
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (t-DCS) of the Cerebellum on Pain Perception and Endogenous Pain Modulation: a Randomized, Monocentric, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Crossover Study – Not to go too Mengele, but I need to track down a chronic pain individual to test this on, because it’s consistent with my thinking. Pain itself is interpreted system wide as decreased astrocytic function, by mechanically juicing the function of those astrocytes we should be able to increase methylation of the necessary chemicals to inhibit the transfer of the signal.
Bibliometric and visualised analysis on non-invasive cerebellar stimulation from 1995 to 2021 – A good review for tree walking purposes.
The Predictive Role of the Posterior Cerebellum in the Processing of Dynamic Emotions – I still weight RNS and TACS about the same, TDCS has a more consistent mechanical explanation for it’s function. RNS has the potential to be better than TACS, but not by much if the random part is really random. I like the overarching theme of this though, when the cerebellum is creating it’s object models, it “flavors” those objects with emotional context, which guides downstream basal ganglia processing.
Time dependent effects of cerebellar tDCS on cerebello-cortical connectivity networks in young adults Preprint – It’s difficult to explain this because people are so locked into old models, but the flow of information processing goes Sensors(First Order Neurons)->Integration(basal ganglia)->Mapping->Evaluation(brain stem)->Adjustment(Object creation)(cerebellum)->Integration(basal ganglia). The final integration step directly overwrites the the first order neuron integrations. Part of the reason there’s so much debate over top down vs. bottom down-ness is that it sort of looks like both, but instantiating salience is still always a brainstem function.
Consensus Paper: Cerebellum and Ageing – I’m extremely certain that cerebellar function is linearly correlated with “cognitive flexibility”.
Effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on cerebellar-brain inhibition in humans: A systematic evaluation – “Kick 2” montage will focus on the cerebellar->motor circuit and be specifically for increasing motor learning capability. I think one of the things I’m going to design into the tDCS device I’m thinking about is to abstract away the idea of cathodal and anodal stimulation and let the device itself handle the polarity switch. That should reduce a lot of the complexity and allow for some interesting “double kick” or “floating” montages.
Effective cerebello–cerebral connectivity during implicit and explicit social belief sequence learning using dynamic causal modeling – Support for the information processing flow noted above.
Edit: Thinking about the device a little bit more, would like the software to either be able to detect (perhaps using differences in resistance values along particular circuits) “interesting” paths automatically, or have a manually guided option that would let the user “tag” interesting pathways. Ugh, the software feature creep is getting a little crazy, but it’s necessary. Would also be interested in seeing changes in resistance over time, this would go toward answering the question of how long does it take for new circuits form. E.g. we should see a slight drop in resistance in the short term (e.g. intra-session) but if this is working correctly, larger changes in resistance over multiple sessions. Also coming back to wondering about the design of this again, instead of having a set of movable electrodes, maybe a cap that has a full set of electrodes on a shifted 10-10 system (or maybe even 5 degrees), that would allow flexible routing to any particular grid location. This is a lot more expensive of an idea both from a materials and controls standpoint.
Edit 2: I need to get ahold of this device: Soterix Medical HD-tDCS to take a look at how they handle the electrodes.