Re-opening critical plasticity periods & brain overclocking techniques
Anyone knows about methods of chemically inducing the kind of changes mentioned in the following quotation? Or even better, anyone has first-hand experience in the effects of such drugs in human, and know how to get/produce them? References to similar research and new developments in this direction?
"What if it were possible to reopen critical-period plasticity, so that adults could pick up languages the way children do, just by being exposed to them? Merzenich had already shown that plasticity extends into adulthood, and that with work — by paying close attention — we can rewire our brains. But now he was asking, could the critical period of effortless learning be extended?
Learning in the critical period is effortless because during that period the nucleus basalis is always on. So Merzenich and his young colleague Michael Kilgard set up an experiment in which they artificially turned on the nucleus basalis in adult rats and gave them learning tasks where they wouldn't have to pay attention and wouldn't receive a reward for learning.
They inserted microelectrodes into the nucleus basalis and used an electric current to keep it turned on. Then they exposed the rats to a 9 Hz sound
frequency to see if they could effortlessly develop a brain map location for it, the way pups do during the critical period. After a week Kilgard and Merzenich found they could massively expand the brain map for that particular sound frequency. They had found an artificial way to reopen the critical period in adults. They then used the same technique to get the brain to speed up its processing time. Normally an adult rat's auditory neurons can only respond to tones at a maximum of 12 pulses per second. By stimulating the nucleus basalis, it was possible to "educate" the neurons to respond to ever more rapid inputs. This work opens up the possibility of high-speed learning later in life. The nucleus basalis could be turned on by an electrode, by microinjections of certain chemicals, or by drugs. It is hard to imagine that people will not — for better or for worse — be drawn to a technology that would make it relatively effortless to master the facts of science, history, or a profession, merely by being exposed to them briefly."
Norman Doidge, M.D., "The brain that changes itself, Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science", pp 63-64
"What if it were possible to reopen critical-period plasticity, so that adults could pick up languages the way children do, just by being exposed to them? Merzenich had already shown that plasticity extends into adulthood, and that with work — by paying close attention — we can rewire our brains. But now he was asking, could the critical period of effortless learning be extended?
Learning in the critical period is effortless because during that period the nucleus basalis is always on. So Merzenich and his young colleague Michael Kilgard set up an experiment in which they artificially turned on the nucleus basalis in adult rats and gave them learning tasks where they wouldn't have to pay attention and wouldn't receive a reward for learning.
They inserted microelectrodes into the nucleus basalis and used an electric current to keep it turned on. Then they exposed the rats to a 9 Hz sound
frequency to see if they could effortlessly develop a brain map location for it, the way pups do during the critical period. After a week Kilgard and Merzenich found they could massively expand the brain map for that particular sound frequency. They had found an artificial way to reopen the critical period in adults. They then used the same technique to get the brain to speed up its processing time. Normally an adult rat's auditory neurons can only respond to tones at a maximum of 12 pulses per second. By stimulating the nucleus basalis, it was possible to "educate" the neurons to respond to ever more rapid inputs. This work opens up the possibility of high-speed learning later in life. The nucleus basalis could be turned on by an electrode, by microinjections of certain chemicals, or by drugs. It is hard to imagine that people will not — for better or for worse — be drawn to a technology that would make it relatively effortless to master the facts of science, history, or a profession, merely by being exposed to them briefly."
Norman Doidge, M.D., "The brain that changes itself, Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science", pp 63-64
Tagged:
Comments
Dextromethorphan is no more addictive than any other compound that produces an enjoyable altered state. Habitual use can lead to potential problems (and massive tolerance leading to the need for massive doses), but DXM itself even exhibits anti-addictive properties. In addition, it shows some capability for neurological protection, allowing it to be used in combination with otherwise more addictive or damaging compounds to lessen the potential risks. The main things to watch out for in DXM use are serotonin syndrome when mixed with other compounds that act on serotonin (such as SSRIs and MDMA) and vasoconstriction and increased body temperature when mixed with other compounds that have similar effects. On its own, ignoring any individual anomalies such as enzyme deficiencies, DXM is largely one of the safer compounds for inducing an altered state of mind in the brain. If anyone cares I can dig around for some studies to back up these claims as I'm operating on memory right now.
Moving on-- I believe @Ezekiel was specifically talking about low-dose DXM usage for what is commonly regarded as its "afterglow". DXM combined with a potentiating compound such as chlorphenamine or cimetidine allows a small dose to have an effect over a larger period of time. This technique is currently used to treat some neurological disorders such as cluster headaches migraines (see brand name "Neudexta", which is 20mg DXM and 10mg quinidine sulfate) (correction). The DXM "afterglow" is significantly different in its perceived effects from recreational "upper plateau" dosing. The afterglow provides feelings of stimulation, elation, and mild dissociation, as @Ezekiel was talking about.
Dissociation does mean there is a disconnect from the world, but that does not mean you can't interact with it in a meaningful and useful way, especially at lower doses. However, (stronger) dissociation is particularly useful as a meditative aid in allowing an individual to focus inward.
You will never be "talking with goblins" on DXM- the only time you would have a similarly confused state is on a very large dose of DXM (at least third plateau). A comparable dose of psychedelics would of course produce similarly disorienting phenomena. That experience itself though sounds more typical of a deliriant, but now I'm just splitting hairs.
Additionally, dissociatives and psychedelics are most likely unrelated
to the concept of inducing extra plasticity within the brain, so this was all just one big tangent for us all.
You cannot compensate for neurotransmitter deficiency with more of a psychoactive substance, however what you said about maintaining a healthy diet is spot on.
Given DXM's short half-life, you might try adding a small amount of chlorphenamine to potentiate. One 4mg pill with your morning dose is enough for the day and should noticably extend the active period, letting you reduce the need to redose. As regular DXM use develops tolerance, this can be important if you're planning on using this as a regular nootropic-of-sorts. The mechanic here is chlorphenamine inhibiting the enzymes that break down DXM into DXO and its other byproducts. Its wise to keep your DXM-DXO ratio high as DXO produces more of a drunken state of mind. Not really what you want for studying.
Also, a small correction on an implication I made earlier- Neudexta is not currently used to treat migraines or cluster headaches. Its current approved use is for the pseudobulbar affect.
Just wanted to say be careful with DXM if you do mess with it. Although it's not physically addicting, if you've got a history of addiction in your family(I do) I'd avoid it except as a cough suppressant. I was addicted for about 9 months, and psychological withdrawal (depression, lethargy, suicidal thoughts, etc.) lasted a month. I never had any mental issues before, and got addicted using it the way you guys are discussing, just a low dose boost. keep it short term and you should be fine if you're careful...
Just a warning.
On the use of drugs as performance enhancer rather than recreational, you are spot on. You can take many other high-performance groups as reference, not just sport-men but elite academics -and students-, among whom the use of nootropics of one sort of another is commonplace. We are not just talking about caffeine here, but beta-blockers and the like. You may also be interested in taking a look on what the bodybuilding community is taking, i.e. ECA stack is a good booster -may be hard for you to find ephedra now that it is banned-. The same applies to food intake, most of the time people decides to eat, or chose one food over another because of the pleasurable experience it provides, not because any real need or benefit in terms of fueling the body. There is a continuum, not a clear division, between both categories. In this regard I completely agree that the optimal approach is a diet / lifestyle change. I have been following a pattern of regular fasting and eating for the last year and a half, right now eating only 3 or 4 days a week. There are many benefits associated to a strict diet like this, also in a neurological level. You can check this blog entry, where you will find several insteresting links to scientific literature: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-brain-function/#axzz2guRgTVA7 . You can also look for the works of researchers such as Professor Mark Mattson, from the National Institute on Ageing in Baltimore, or just Google Scholar the subject. There is a growing corpus of evidence supporting the multiple benefits of diet for mental health and performance. Besides, in a less high-performance level, it is known that being overweight impairs brain functioning, by creating a state of permanent infection in the organism and by debilitating the strenght of the blood-brain barrier. It is necessary to be fit and healthy in general in order to operate optimally. None of this, though, accounts as reopening the brain plasticity period -the topic of this discussion, that I started several months ago-.
You have caffeine, which is a general stimulant, and then there are CNS stimulants like amphetamines. They can seem similar, but function differently and it becomes more pronounced at higher doses.
When you look at brain activity of someone "doing something", there are areas of activity (light) and areas of relative inactivity (dark).
On caffeine, all areas are lightened - i.e., all areas of the brain have heightened activity. This causes more alertness and a feeling of more stimulation, but it doesn't really change focus or concentration directly.
By contrast, CNS stimulants make the light areas lighter, and the dark areas darker. This causes an increase in focus and concentration because the "background noise" is quieter, while whatever you're focused on becomes more stimulating. Your brain activity itself is actually focused on whatever you're doing, and if you switch to something else you focus on that.
I've been very into nootropics and mind enhancers for a long time. I there is an issue that should be addressed, and I'll introduce it with a very debatable claim:
Lorazepam is a performance enhancer.
Ok, seems silly right? I mean, of all medications and substances benozdiazapenes are amongst the least likely to be categorized as such, perhaps second only to anticholinergics and anaesthetics. I mean, all research indicates it actually prevents long term memory formation/consolidation, and inhibits short term memory. And yet, I say again.. its a performance enhancer.
See, stress is good for performance in many ways, but its benefits lie on something like a normal curve. Too much, and performance degrades significantly. A very stressed ambitious type A person often experiences an increase in performance with lorazepam. They are more effective, happier, and this is reflected in their work/behaviors. So this brings up to my real point here: there is a big difference between a substance which improves performance and a substance that improves ones faculties, be it physical or mental.
So consider lorazepam from this perspective. Any research, such as a rat study or a study on LTP of neurons will reflect that lorazepam decreases ones faculties. There is no doubt here. It doesn't help you remember better. Were one to perform a study with the highly stressed, I imagine you could find however that they have better output. It's the same as looking at creatine for vegans. For most people, creatine does little, but for vegans its been shown to enhance cognition. This type of idea could be extended to vitamins and nutrients. Someone with a deficiency will experience a cognitive enhancement from a MVI. Because true performance is so multi-factorial, its hard to make a judgement on something like an ECA stack. If a person is obese, has terrible self-esteem, and mild depression which is expressed in a lowered activity level, an ECA stack may significantly increase their performance.
To be fair, I also have to flip back to a critical stance. This is like a drunk telling you that they drive better after a few. Stoners often claim to be more creative and effective. In some case, these examples may hold true, but I'd argue that just as many are a form of self-delusion.
My conclusion on this is that saying "performance enhancing" or "mind-enhancing" etc. is just too damn vague. We should differentiate between what Glims is discussing which is substances or mechanisms by which one can show a definite, significant, repeatable result indicating enhancement of a faculty, and something like finding a personal enhancement in ability from something like DXM. I'm not against the second perspective. Perhaps DXM really can be considered a performance enhancer in some ways, but it's not a faculty enhancer. I don't know that there's a word for this differentiation I'm making.