MOOD-MANIPULATING MAGNET?
Image: Wikimedia
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
When a researcher asks a volunteer to slide head-first into the open eye of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine, the expectation is that the device's magnetic field will penetrate the skull to produce a faithful picture of the brain without changing its behavior. A new study suggests, however, that MRI machines do, in fact, manipulate brain activity—and they change the brain in a way that helps treat depression. In other words, MRIs may be unintentional antidepressants.
Hadi Rokni-Yazdi of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iran and his colleagues organized 51 volunteers with major depressive disorder into three 17-person groups. Volunteers in the first two groups received one of two kinds of MRI scan. Those in the third group received phony MRI scans: The magnet was never switched on, but a recording of the sound generated by a genuine session was played to convince the volunteers they had been scanned. All the subjects were taking common antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and all had their level of depression assessed by standard scales before and after the procedure.
Two weeks after the scans, volunteers in the first two groups scored between 35 and 40 percent lower on the depression scales than they scored before the scan. The placebo effect may have played a role; when people believe they are receiving a helpful treatment for anything, they often feel better afterward. But volunteers in the pretend MRI group improved less, only by 15 to 19 percent. So, the researchers reasoned, some other factor must explain why volunteers who received phony MRIs showed less improvement. The results are discussed in the November issue of Brain Imaging and Behavior.
One possibility is that the magnetic field created by the MRI machine somehow acts as an antidepressant. Scientists have been investigating the idea that magnets can relieve depression for more than a decade. Most studies have focused on repetitive transcranial magnetic simulation (rTMS), in which an alternating magnetic field induces electric currents in specific regions of the brain, with mixed results. However, a few studies have asked the same questions about MRIs, which create a weaker magnetic field and thus weaker electric currents. Previously, researchers have found that MRIs or devices that generate similarly weak magnetic stimulation improved mood in patients with bipolar disorder—who fluctuate between mania and depression—and helped relieve depression in rats and mice.
But the evidence so far has failed to persuade most scientists, not least because no one has been able to explain exactly how magnetic stimulation alters brain activity in a way that improves depression—although at least one researcher has a few ideas.
About eight years ago, Michael Rohan of Harvard Medical School’s McLean Hospital was running MRI studies of people with depression and noticed that the volunteers emerged from the scans with improved moods. Rohan has been looking into the matter ever since and has recently finished an as-of-yet unpublished study that "looks favorable," he says. He has even created a tabletop device that produces the same electric fields generated by magnetic pulses inside the MRI machine. Because the electric fields generated by an MRI's magnet are too weak to change the behavior of axons—the long tails of neurons that send out signals—Rohan thinks that, instead, the electric fields somehow synchronize signals in a neuron's dendrites, the many branches that receive signals from nearby cells. Out-of-sync electrical activity has been implicated in many brain disorders.
"We're still in the early stages," Rohan stresses. "All of this is exploratory."
As neuroscience blogger Neuroskeptic points out, another possibility is that the results in the new study are a statistical fluke. Almost all the volunteers improved, and those who recovered the most may have wound up in the first two groups by chance. The smaller the number of participants, the more likely this kind of statistical fluke can occur.
Or, perhaps, it was the placebo effect after all. Volunteers in the fake scan group may have improved less overall because some noticed that, despite attempts to hide it, something was a little off or simply did not buy into the idea as much as volunteers who had received real scans, especially if they had prior experience with MRIs—a question the researchers did not ask.
The study is only the first clinical trial to specifically investigate whether MRIs can help people suffering from major depressive disorder, and the intriguing results will likely inspire other researchers to try similar experiments of their own.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThe placebo effect should be easy enough to eliminate in any repeat of this experiment. Simply don't tell the participants that you're using the MRI as a therapeutic tool. After all, it was orignally designed for diagnostic purposes. So if you tell them that you're measuring potential changes in brain activity as a result of their antidepressant use (for example), they won't be expecting any improvement in symptoms from being scanned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy guess is that having attention paid to them makes subjects feel better and that rather than calling this the "Placebo" affect I would call it the "compassion" and "attention" affect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw this affect (and felt it myself) during the year of cognitive and physical therapies I underwent after I suffered a stroke caused by the pregnancy related illness, HELLP Syndrome (a rare and extreme form of eclampsia with unknown -- probably genetic-- causes). If the nurses and cognitive therapists were kind I did better. If they were abrupt, cold, or rude (believe it or not, some are) I did worse.
The same (I believe) holds for the teacher/student relationship. Students live up to a teacher's expectations (whether those expectations are spoken or not) and a teacher who cares about her students (as individuals) gets better results (in my experience). A compassionate writing teacher in college changed my life by teaching me to use writing to think critically and inspired by him I also attempted to teach college freshmen critical thinking and writing for two semesters while studying for the Ma/PhD in English at U. Mass. Amherst. During that time I saw some pretty amazing social and cognitive transformations occur in my classroom. But of course because teaching is a very hard ART (not a science) I also felt like an abject failure on some days...
Psychiatrists are a funny lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to this report, "... the (MRI) evidence so far has failed to persuade most scientists, not least because no one has been able to explain exactly how magnetic stimulation alters brain activity in a way that improves depression..." Psychiatrists use ECT to improve (mostly severe, intractable)depressions (and it does!) though they have no idea how ECT works to produce the effect. They use TMS for depression and they haven't the faintest idea of how it works (if it does at all.) They massively employ (the mostly ineffectual) SSRIs and SNRIs with no idea of how they work (if they do at all) but they "explain" their "action" through the (old as Galen) concept of "correcting a chemical (read "humor") imbalance." Black and yellow bile anyone? I do not think psychiatrists are in any position to judge evidence, scientific or otherwise. With a few exceptions, psychiatrists cannot recognize science if it would slap them in the face. Also, the field has been so perverted by their kowtowing to the interests of the drug companies, that by now are indistinguishable from their own venal interests, that they are in no position to pass judgement on psychiatric treatments. If (and only if) MRIs alleviate depression, the questions are, which parameters were employed to diagnose depression? Once diagnosed, what scale was used to gauge the severity of the depression? What were the scale's cut-off points to accept individuals to the study? Even if everything is on the level, what is the practicality of using MRIs to manage depression? When psychiatry is not even close to answer any of the mechanisms of the syndromes it lists (by the hundreds!) in their DSM or of the treatments it vastly employs, to "doubt" that MRIs can alleviate depression because the mechanism is unknown is totally ridiculous. Psychiatrists are ready to believe, no questions asked, that imbalances of serotonin and noradrenaline are responsible for depression but not that the magnetic alteration of atomic nuclei in the neurons and their circuits can alter behavior because they cannot understand it. Maybe if they can make some money out of the MRIs...?
As Otto Rank said in the moment he died: "Komish." Odd, strange, comical.
Good points to consider - thanks, Mahmd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMRI's use both inhomogeneous magnetic fields and a variety of strong electric fields (radio wavelength) "stimulations". Not having access to the original article, it is not obvious if any work was done to identify if the medical effect is correlated with one or the other or somehow is an effect of both (assuming there IS an effect...). Traditional NMR, upon which MRI is based, affects the nucleus of specific atoms (usually hydrogen) and (we expect) little else. Modern cell phones use fractal-based antenna methods that allow them to be very small; so it might be interesting to ask the question if there are brain structures that can act as antenna.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I doubt something works" translates roughly to "I wasn't taught that; my current knowlege doesn't include this type of treatment as being effective". Considering that most proposed treatments are not effective (heck, most existing, accepted treatments don't work very well), this is probably a good guess.
... but that opinion probably won't (and shouldn't) dissuade the authors from doing more work.
How do you actually measure the level of depression in someone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there a scale for that?
Regarding the use of MRI to treat depression seems plausible(Actually everything is plausible in science) if we consider the argument that magnetic fields synchronize electrical impulses in brain synapses if not produce them. It may have some kind of effect on the ions in the brain.
But the point is whether this is applicable to only weak fields or also to intense fields? The results have a direct implication that this kind of experiment if repeated with intense fields, may result in mania.
What if we try to alter brain signals directly with electric fields? this would be more direct and efficient way of treatment.
Something to consider: LENS (low-energy neurofeedback systems) was developed over 16 years ago by Len Ochs, cf: www.ochslabs.com LENS applications have also been found to regulate the brainwaves and, in doing so, improve the disturbing symptoms of many people who were suffering from anxiety, depression, poor concentration, rumination, and other effects of a troubled brain, including seizures. While not promoted as a cure for anything, LENS has consistently been used as an effective treatment for many people who experience such symptoms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"as-of-yet" is not an expression. it is "as of now" or, in your case, "as yet" It takes the scholarly edge off, using this phrase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many scales that measure depression. The most commonly used is the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are methods that "alter brain signals directly with electric fields." Depression was quite successfully treated by causing seizures with insulin or camphor. These methods were replaced by the use of electrical fields to cause the convulsions, and was finally adopted because is easier to control than producing hypoglycemic shocks (camphor never really caught.) It is called Electroconvulsive Therapy or ECT. Some still call it electroshock. It is very safe and effective in relieving severe depressions. The major drawback is memory loss and some cognitive dysfunction. That is why in a series of ECTs to be administered to an individual the psychiatrist should gauge cognitive status and working and long-term memories through the administration of the so-called Mini-Mental Status Examination, and space the administration of ECT according to the return of cognition and memory to a baseline. Nobody knows how ECT works, though speculations abound. But it really does work. Oh! By the way. The induction of seizures to treat "melancholia" has been around since probably the 17th century. The use of electrical fields was started by the italian Cerletti in the late 1930's. Ergo, call it electrical fields or magnetic fields, there is nothing new under the sun... I mean, in the treatment of depression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomehow the number of participants in this survey seems too small....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut further, in response to mah3md who seems to feel that psychiatry is just a science wannabe and makes the claim that Psychiatrists are a funny lot and then rambles on about their scientific acumen, one can only say What a load of crap... A blatant generalization of arrogant nonsense that is. It simply coldcocks intelligent thought... How can you make such statement and expect to be taken seriously... Must be a problem getting that head through a doorway.... Amen to you brother.... next time try a secular approach...
It wont work by a long shot! INDEED, it's about chemistry...do your homework & you'll see what I mean! Only medication can get their balance upright!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this