DIY tDCS: a need for an empirical look

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes on contributor

Anita S. Jwa is a doctoral (J.S.D.) candidate at Stanford Law School. Anita received an LL.B. in Law (2006), Cum Laude, and an M.A. in Evolutionary Anthropology (2011) both from Seoul National University. She also earned a J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School (2011). During her studies, Anita worked as a research assistant in Law and the Brain project at Vanderbilt and interned at Ministry of Government Legislation in Korea. Prior to joining Stanford, Anita was a researcher at Seoul National University Law Research Institute, and later on, she worked as a law clerk at Supreme Court of Korea. Anita’s J.S.D. research focuses on issues in the intersection of law and neuroscience, especially on neuroethics of cognitive enhancement.

Notes

1 Actually Thync is not a tDCS device – it uses pulsed electric currents instead of direct current and stimulates cranial and spinal nerve pathways rather than the brain directly (Thync, Accessed May 10, 2017, http://www.thync.com). However, the fact that a company selling a brain stimulation device intended for home use has experienced financial difficulties gives us a meaningful clue to estimate the current demand for home use brain stimulation devices in general including tDCS.