Neurostimulation Podcast – Aug 30, 2025

Guests: Professor Bernhard Hommel & Professor Lorenza Colzato

Host: Dr. Michael Passmore

Episode Overview:

In this episode, Dr. Passmore is joined by Professors Hommel and Colzato to discuss their recent research on metacontrol—the brain’s ability to balance persistence and flexibility—and how it can be modulated using paired anodal tDCS and methylphenidate. The conversation explores the implications of reducing cortical noise, the significance of the aperiodic EEG exponent, and the potential for individualized, biomarker-guided neurostimulation treatments.

Key Topics:

Definition and importance of metacontrol in cognitive function

The spectrum between persistence and flexibility in the brain

Individual variability in cognitive control and its clinical relevance

The study: combining anodal tDCS over the right inferior frontal cortex with methylphenidate

Findings: reduction in cortical noise during task processing, indexed by a rise in the aperiodic EEG exponent (especially at fCZ)

Implications for ADHD, OCD, and other disorders affecting attention and cognitive control

The need for replication and standardization before clinical application

Cultural differences in treatment approaches (pharmacological vs. neurostimulation)

The future of personalized, feedback-driven neurostimulation and neurofeedback

Takeaways:

Metacontrol is a modifiable brain function, not just an abstract concept.

Combined tDCS and methylphenidate can reduce cortical noise during tasks, with the aperiodic exponent as a promising EEG marker.

The path to clinical application will require safety, individualization, and further research.

Links & Resources:

Study in Brain Stimulation Journal:

https://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X(25)00081-6/fulltext

Additional lab content and resources:

https://www.bernhard-hommel.eu/en

The Metacontrol Lab YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/@metacontrol-2024

Disclaimer:

This episode is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Do not attempt brain stimulation or drug-device combinations outside of supervised clinical research.

Connect:

If you enjoyed this episode, please like, subscribe, and leave your questions or comments below. Let us know what topics you’d like to hear about in future episodes!

Welcome to the Neurostimulation Podcast.

2

I'm Michael Passmore.

3

Today we're talking about a really

interesting topic, meta control.

4

Which is a way of describing the

brain's ability to tune between

5

persistence and flexibility.

6

My guests today are Professor Bernhard

Hommel and Professor Lorenza Colzato, and

7

they and their team have just reported

a really interesting study indicating

8

that paired anodal, tDCS, over right

inferior frontal cortex, in addition

9

to methylphenidate, can reduce cortical

noise and that it seems to be indexed

10

by a rise in the aperiodic EEG exponent.

11

Lots of technical terminology,

but we'll have an opportunity

12

to unpack all of that today.

13

And the important part of the

study was that it was found to be

14

occurring specifically during task

processing and not merely at rest.

15

And so, I'm looking forward to talking

more about this because the findings

16

included things like the effect centered

over mid frontal electrodes, so fCZ,

17

and it grew when stimulation and

medication were combined, which suggested

18

partially convergent mechanisms on

signal to noise in cognitive control,

19

which is extremely important in terms

of enhancing our understanding about

20

disorders that affect attention and

other aspects of cognitive control.

21

So we're gonna unpack what things like

a periodic activity is, why meta control

22

matters for real world functioning

and what those findings might mean for

23

treatment of conditions like ADHD and

obsessive compulsive disorder, and for

24

the future of things like biomarker

guided, noninvasive brain stimulation.

25

And so, as usual, I'm gonna put

lengths to the study and other.

26

Content that, that the team has on

the net, and you can feel free to

27

check that out, I would encourage you.

28

and then one last thing before, we say

hello, is that a quick reminder is that

29

as usual, these conversations are for

education only and it's not medical

30

advice, and we're not endorsing any kind

of unsupervised use of brain stimulation

31

devices or drug device combinations

outside of this clinical research setting

32

that we're going to discuss today.

33

Lorenza: So once again, uh, thank you, uh,

Professor Hommel and Professor Colzato,

34

thanks so much for joining us today.

35

Really looking forward to

an interesting conversation.

36

Yes, thank you for the invitation.

37

Thank you.

38

We are pleased to be here and to

have this conversation with you.

39

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it.

40

Maybe we could start by you, uh,

sort of introducing yourselves and,

41

uh, explaining a little bit about

your background in terms of your

42

research interests to, uh, audience

here, and that would be very helpful.

43

Yeah, I'm, uh, Bernard Hommel.

44

Uh, I'm originally German.

45

Uh, I'm still German, I'm afraid.

46

Uh, but, uh, I, uh, then worked at

the Max Planck Institute in Munich.

47

Uh, then went to the Netherlands.

48

We together, went to the

Netherlands working in, at

49

University of Leiden for 20 years.

50

Uh, and then with a brief encounter

in Dresden, Germany at the technical

51

university, we went to China where we

are working now, uh, in Shinan in the

52

province of Shandong, uh, so far away.

53

Um, and there we are.

54

We are both interested in

cognitive control, uh, and, uh.

55

Well, I will explain later.

56

Uh, but, uh, the, especially the

combination with individual variability,

57

so we all differ, um, and, uh, we try

to combine this kind of differential

58

approach with a basic cognitive science

or cognitive neuroscience approach.

59

So, but first you, yes.

60

I'm Lorenza Colzato.

61

I'm Italian.

62

I study psychology at the

University of Pavan in Italy.

63

Then, uh, uh, for my PhD I moved

to the Netherlands in Leiden, uh,

64

where we worked, uh, together.

65

And then after that we moved,

uh, for or three years to d and

66

then from Dresden to, uh, China.

67

And as Bernard, I'm very much interested

in, uh, cognitive control and in means

68

to enhance or decrease certain functions.

69

So I'm very much interested in the

neuromodulation of cognition using

70

the non-invasive brain stimulation

or, uh, pharmacological manipulations.

71

Mm-hmm.

72

Fantastic.

73

Yeah, thanks for that

introduction, both of you.

74

So interesting.

75

We were just talking a little bit

offline about, um, these, these kinds

76

of approaches, how there's been just

such a explosion in breadth of, of,

77

of non-invasive neurostimulation

techniques in terms of research and

78

then clinical applications as well.

79

And so this topic of meta control,

so for viewers and listeners who are

80

new to this particular topic, maybe,

if you don't mind, could you offer

81

a working definition of metarol as

it relates to this idea of balance

82

between persistence and flexibility?

83

It seems to me very

interesting in terms of how.

84

Um, you know, not only in the research

setting, but then how that likely would

85

apply to clinical applications, whether

it's medication and or neurostimulation.

86

Yeah, perhaps it, it may help if I, uh,

tell a little bit about the background,

87

so where this comes from, uh, and why

we kind of ended there as it were.

88

Um, so, uh, I, I was working with

colleagues in, in, in, in Munich, uh,

89

on the relationship between Perception

Action, and we, uh, built a model that

90

is still, I think, the most comprehensive

model of this, uh, connection, uh, so far.

91

And then the next question, and also

kind of reinforced by, by Lorenza, who

92

is a clinical psychologist by training.

93

Uh, the question then is, okay, if

this is a general model, what do

94

we need to build in, in order to

account for individual differences?

95

So some people are doing things a

little bit like this, others like that.

96

So for instance, I worked on

the Simon Effect, a very simple

97

minded, uh, uh, boring effect.

98

But, uh, in, in, in, I had two, uh,

uh, very famous colleagues, one in

99

Italy and one in the us and they.

100

Always May had the same

experiments, of course.

101

Uh, and then they had very

different effect sizes.

102

So in the US the one of this, let's

say the size of the effect would be

103

around 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 milliseconds.

104

I would typically have

17, almost always 17, 18.

105

And our Italian colleague had 30.

106

So how come if you do hundreds

of experiments, how come that

107

you always end up like this?

108

So, and questions like that, or if,

if there is variability and so forth.

109

So the question was what,

what do we need to build in?

110

Uh, and then, um.

111

The idea was that there are two, probably

two ways to build it in, and namely 1

112

1, 1 of the facts of the of the brain

is that it is highly competitive,

113

meaning that if you have gained

somewhere, you have losses elsewhere.

114

This is in terms of structure,

it's a term of process.

115

Even the retina is driven by this

principle, so this is one, and it

116

could be that this competition.

117

Is sometimes stronger in some people

or sometimes in the same person,

118

but other times for the same person.

119

It's, it's more versus less.

120

And the other is that we are gold guys.

121

So we, most of our processes are somehow

affected, if not guided by our goals.

122

Now you can elaborate on what

the goal is, but it's clear

123

that it is driving us somehow.

124

And again, this drive could be stronger

or weaker depending on the circumstances.

125

Now we had these two things, and then we

thought about, okay, what does that do?

126

So if you think about it, if you, if you

losen the competition, you make, let's

127

say distributed representation, more

likely you allow for more representations

128

to, to live with each other.

129

Like, and when would you use

the, would you need that?

130

Well, if you are thinking about.

131

Op, let's say open box situations where

you want out of the box, where you

132

think, oh, how else could I spend my day?

133

Okay.

134

I always do it like a,

but what else could I do?

135

Then?

136

You don't want strong competition.

137

Uh, you want many possible alternatives

to co-exist, whereas in other situations,

138

like if you give me a very challenging

task where you say, I bombard you with

139

stimulation, but you only re are to

report this stimulus and you ignore

140

everything else, then I want the opposite.

141

I would want to have strong

competition and, uh, a very, very high

142

focusing on only what is relevant.

143

So the goal should determine

what I see or hear, or do.

144

So different situations

call for different setups.

145

And if you assume that, let's say Max,

the maximum of goal drivenness and

146

competition could be called persistence

because it is focusing you as much as

147

possible on something versus the opposite,

relaxing all the constraints, opening up

148

to everything else is doing the opposite.

149

That's what we call flexibility.

150

You can imagine that there is a meta

control, as we call it, so, because the

151

type of control is determined by this, and

you may imagine that this is one dimension

152

moving from one call to the other

depending on circumstances or requirements

153

or task requirements, whatever.

154

But it could also be, and there

is actually evidence for that,

155

that some people are more at home.

156

On one part of this, uh, dimension

and others are elsewhere.

157

So all those admin people who love

Excel sheets are certainly in need of

158

a lot of persistence and they probably

are born like this with this bias.

159

Whereas artists, uh, probably

have the opposite, uh, very loose.

160

They are often not very straightforward

in their thinking, but that makes

161

them at creative at the same time.

162

So this is the, was the general idea

to develop something on top of control

163

that determines not whether I control

or what I control, but how I, what style

164

I prefer when doing the controlling.

165

Yeah, that's, thank you

for that explanation.

166

It's, it's fascinating.

167

There's so many things that, that have

come to mind when you're describing that.

168

I, I mean, I have a, a, I guess

I have a bias as, as someone

169

who's interested in cognitive

psychiatry, cognitive neuroscience.

170

Mm-hmm.

171

And over the years, I've come to wonder

if even I'm gonna get in trouble with

172

my mood disorder colleagues, but if even

things like mood disorders are, to a large

173

degree, cognitive disorders, I mean, I

think there's been interesting theory

174

around psychotic disorders being conceived

of as properly core cognitive disorders.

175

And so what you're explaining made

me think about a couple of things.

176

It reminded me a little bit of Ian

McGilchrist's description of sort of

177

brain lateralization issues in terms

of focus versus more broad awareness.

178

Mm-hmm.

179

And then also what you've just

recently brought into the discussion

180

there was made me think about

how the cognitive and metarol.

181

And the, the, the sort of variability

is, is kind of going into the

182

territory of different temperaments

and different personalities Yes.

183

And how those overlap.

184

Yeah.

185

And, and I guess that fits with this

concept of what, what, I understand that

186

you've called non bivalent psychopathology

because of that spectrum type Yes.

187

Framework, I suppose.

188

No.

189

Yes.

190

Um, well, the, I mean the logic

is I think, straightforward.

191

If you, if you, uh, let's say

want to explain or account for

192

individual variability for the

fact that you do things differently

193

than I do and so forth, then the

question is what is psychopathology?

194

This is just mm-hmm.

195

You transform something from a kind

of a feature based, uh, sorting

196

into a continuous dimension.

197

Um, and because on, on this hypothetical

dimension of metarol between these two

198

poles, there is no border or no area

where you say, oh, you're leaving the,

199

the British sector or something, uh, or

the safe sector or the, the same sector,

200

um, you, and that means two things.

201

Uh, so, um, well first of all,

what we try to do is to account,

202

so we are, we are not happy with a

phenomenologically based categorization

203

of psychopathologies because I mean,

historically, uh, people start somewhere.

204

They're only interested

in one, uh, pathology.

205

Someone else is interested in another,

who tells us that what they are busy

206

with has nothing to do with each other.

207

Well, the fact that DSM for is,

is, is showing these things on a

208

different page is not, would be much

more convincing if we would know

209

much better about the physiological

and, and brain-wise underpinnings,

210

which we most of the time don't.

211

And at the same time, look at all these

psychopathologies, they almost always have

212

something to do with neurotransmitters.

213

How come if, if they are so separate, so

different, how come that they have very

214

similar, uh, features and characteristics?

215

So this makes us very, very skeptical

about phenomenologically based.

216

So people have just limited ways

to describe their experience.

217

Often language based limitations, right?

218

So people think it is good to describe

it like this, but you could also

219

describe it in very different terms.

220

The different languages have d slightly

different emphasis and so forth.

221

So what does that mean?

222

It means that you can do this, but it's

very unlikely that let's say language and

223

and other phenomenological categories tell

us much about what the brain cares about.

224

It's very unlikely that the brain hundreds

and year, thousands of years ago said,

225

oh, uh, there is a category like this.

226

I better, you know what I mean?

227

Mm-hmm.

228

Mm-hmm.

229

So the question was how can

one make a continuous model?

230

That allows for, nevertheless, for

different psycho psychopathologies to,

231

to be captured without deciding, oh,

these pathologies, these two pathologies

232

have something to do with each other.

233

And these are not, let's be

open with respect to that.

234

And let's al also be open

with respect to the borders.

235

Let's, so perhaps we all are crazy

to some degree, and, and, and, and

236

under some circumstances I may be

depressive and under, under other

237

circumstances, I may be, what else?

238

But fortunately I'm getting

out of this quick enough for

239

a doctor not to diagnose me.

240

Uh, but that does not mean that

the, the processes underlying

241

it are very different.

242

Perhaps we all have, can generate

these processes, but some

243

fortunately do less so than others.

244

And if that is the case, then you have,

you end up with two conclusions, namely.

245

One is that the difference between

healthy or normal and abnormal

246

psychopathological, atypical, or however

you call it, uh, is not very clear.

247

Okay?

248

Uh, and second, it also means that if we

can de redescribe psychopathologies on

249

this metacontrol, um, dimension, being

in a very extreme in, in the direction

250

of one pole means that I'm very bad

with respect to all the things that

251

require the other pole, but it also

means that I should be particularly good.

252

With respect to quite a number

of things that are related

253

to the poll I'm attached to.

254

And that is, if you read very closely

the literature, that is what you can

255

demonstrate, namely that they overperform

with respect to healthy controls.

256

So all the pathologies, the big

ones, can be demonstrated to be, to

257

generate people who are particularly

good with respect to some tasks if

258

the tasks are close to one of the

polls, uh, that they are attached to.

259

Hmm.

260

Yeah.

261

That's fascinating.

262

No, I, I mean, thanks for explaining that.

263

I also share, uh, to a certain

extent, you know, your skepticism

264

about the phenomenologically based

way of diagnosing mental illness.

265

And I, I, I get, I guess, you know, it's,

it's interesting 'cause I can remember

266

as a resident thinking about wondering

somewhat, you know, I was curious

267

because I noticed that senior colleagues

tend not to bother too much with.

268

Check boxes of the DSM and as

residents, we were kind of forced

269

to in order to pass our exam.

270

And now 20 years later, I can kind of see,

because I'm more, more kind of agnostic

271

about the check boxes because I realize

there's all these different incentives.

272

Like, you know, obviously it's

better for the drug companies if

273

there can be a checklist for a busy

clinician to just check off a few

274

boxes and then prescribe a medication.

275

And then insurance reimbursement is sort

of, um, incentivized to have these kinds

276

of, um, you know, what would you say?

277

Like the, just the categories that it's

sort of easy to slot people into, but

278

it's also something that I've noticed

in terms of clinical experiences.

279

There's a tendency to, you're not

supposed to ask leading questions,

280

but you have a checkbox in your mind.

281

And so, you know, the leading questions

kind of almost happen by default.

282

So it's no wonder that patients

are also kind of dissatisfied with

283

much of psychiatric care and much

of what medications have to offer.

284

And another reason why it's really

exciting that what we're seeing

285

with neurostimulation options.

286

And, and even combining treatments

like neurostimulation with medication

287

or neurostimulation with cognitive

behavioral therapy is going towards

288

like a, a tailoring or a personalization

of treatment, which kind of goes along

289

with what you're saying in terms of

the personalization of diagnosis as

290

well, as opposed to that phenomenal,

phenomenologically based approach.

291

Yes.

292

Yeah.

293

Very important.

294

Yeah.

295

I, I think, I mean, and this is

something, first, we thought that

296

when we start submitting papers with

this undertone that the, it would be,

297

it would meet pretty much resistance

from, especially from the psychiatric

298

side, and the opposite was the case.

299

I think these people were very, because

I think most reasonable doctors.

300

Know or feel that it's not

ideal what they're doing,

301

but they have no better idea.

302

And of course they want to be

scientists and they want to

303

follow some rules and some logic.

304

Uh, so it makes sense that they

are using whatever is is provided

305

by the, the important societies.

306

But at the same time, I think

most of them, the more practical

307

they are busy, uh, feel that there

is something, some limitation.

308

And I think almost everyone would

agree, even in the, in the not

309

non-psychiatric medical sector

would agree that personalized

310

and much, much more personalized

medicine is absolutely crucial.

311

It's just how do we.

312

Advance the, the science

in order to get there.

313

So the, the challenge is much

bigger than the, the understanding.

314

No, that's not what I wanna say.

315

The understanding is good.

316

Uh, but the question

is where, where to go.

317

So our, the, the support for,

uh, and the, the, for our

318

papers, it was actually amazing.

319

Yes, yes.

320

So we had very, very positive experience

and no defensive, um, especially

321

observations for the last article.

322

Yeah.

323

Yeah.

324

Except maybe this is a

funny anecdote actually.

325

The eye, the title was not non by,

uh, bivalent, but was non-binary.

326

And we an issue because of using

this terminology, which with the

327

gender, with the gender we see.

328

Oh dear.

329

I mean for, uh, European, this is

absolutely not an issue, but probably

330

the reviewer was, uh, uh, American say,

no, this is the terminology too woke.

331

Yeah, absolutely.

332

You have to change it.

333

And it was a little bit, uh,

biter for us was, that was funny.

334

Uh, a funny way because for us,

uh, it has not necessarily, uh, a

335

gender related meaning, but yeah.

336

This, these are the languages.

337

And I think, and the differences

between actually non-binary would be a

338

better Yeah, it would be terminology.

339

It would fit much better.

340

But anyways, this is the editorial

logic that we had to follow.

341

Right?

342

Yeah.

343

Yeah.

344

Well, that's, that's, yeah.

345

Interesting.

346

And so, yeah, I can see

how that came about.

347

So that we'll use non bivalent.

348

Yes.

349

Um, and so, yeah, I mean, I think

maybe that's a good segue into.

350

Um, helping us understand more about the

study, um, involving the Hommel tDCS over

351

right inferior, inferior frontal gyrus,

and then combining with methylphenidate.

352

Do you mind walking us through about,

uh, basics of the study, sort of design

353

and then the results that you found?

354

Mm-hmm.

355

Uh, actually the design was not

done by ourselves because, uh, that

356

was actually already been done.

357

And what was at the University

of Resident and what we actually

358

did, it was a re-analysis Okay.

359

Of our study, of this study

using a periodic activity.

360

So what our colleague did is, uh,

the use and intensity of 2 million

361

per of the, uh, another tDCS, which

is the standard, uh, uh, dosage

362

used in many, many, uh, studies.

363

And for MPH, they used P 75

milligram per kilogram, which is

364

considered a pretty high dose, I

would say, at least in Europe, which.

365

If you think about, if you are

seven kilogram weight, then you

366

would get, uh, 52, uh, milligram,

which is, uh, considerable.

367

Yeah.

368

Some quite, yeah.

369

And perhaps just to, to explain, um, we,

we were, um, particularly interested in,

370

in, we, we, in the, in the past, we did

many re analyses for the following reason.

371

Most of the EEG researchers are extremely

interested in periodic activity.

372

So most, uh, readers, or listeners

may be familiar with alpha beta gamma

373

rhythms, uh, which refer to the fact

that our neurons fire in particular

374

synchronized ways that can be

characterized by, uh, uh, de describing

375

the frequency or the frequency band,

uh, this can, this falls into, and,

376

and that that rhythm is assumed to.

377

Uh, underlie communication in the

brain, and therefore it makes sense

378

for a neuroscientist or cognitive

neuroscientists to analyze them.

379

So, uh, and that means that many

studies, of course, have been done,

380

uh, with a focus on these, uh,

periodic activities, however, yeah.

381

Um, we, we find that the meta

control for metarol as I described

382

it, the, uh, a periodic activity

is even more interesting.

383

Uh, and given that this is typically

ignored because most researchers believe,

384

oh, this is just the measure of noise.

385

If I, if I take all your brain

activity, activity, if I take

386

out all those rhythms that are

supposed to underlie communication

387

that is meaningful, what is left?

388

Well just noise.

389

And only very, very recently

there is from physics actually

390

coming, the idea that noise might

be particularly useful for some.

391

Situations not for, I mean, a totally

noisy brain would be very useless for us.

392

Mm-hmm.

393

But sometimes being noisy is good, and

this sometimes, uh, can be connected

394

theoretically to the meta control story.

395

So that's why we are particularly

interested in studies, um, that, that

396

we already have or that others have

already done and reported, but we redo

397

the whole thing with a totally different

perspective, namely on, on noise.

398

So just, yeah, no, no, exactly.

399

Just explain why we did this.

400

Yeah.

401

Mm-hmm.

402

Yeah, no, that's very helpful background.

403

Um, sometimes it's the, the things that

are, are ignored that you, you know,

404

can lead to the serendipitous findings

and, and improved understanding.

405

Yeah.

406

So that's really interesting.

407

And I'm curious about, I I don't just

maybe also for, well, for me and for

408

anyone listening and watching that doesn't

have experience with the actual tasks.

409

So the Simon and the go, no-go paradigm.

410

So can you just explain a little

bit about what that was in terms

411

of the subjects in the study?

412

Sure, yeah.

413

The, the, the, the go,

no go is, is simpler.

414

Uh, so this is one aspect that you can

combine with other tasks, but the general

415

idea is I present you with at least two

stimuli, let's say an XL and no, and

416

whenever it is an X or a blue versus red,

uh, dot or something, whenever it is one,

417

then you press one key in front of you.

418

So it's, it's embarrassingly simple

and you do it as fast as, as, as

419

possible and as accurately as possible.

420

So we measure reaction

time and, and errors.

421

Error rates.

422

So not pressing the key, even though

you should have, would be an error.

423

Mm-hmm.

424

Uh, and there is a no go.

425

And the other stimulus, whenever I present

this one, you should not press the key.

426

Uh, and even though that sounds.

427

Even simpler.

428

Uh, it is not easy because of course

we play a little trick, uh, or the

429

people who originally ran that,

but we also do that regularly.

430

Namely we make the, uh, the, the,

um, the goal much more frequent.

431

So you are kind of set to

press rather than not to press.

432

And that of course, makes it very easy

to, to kind of automatically press even

433

in the case of a no-go, uh, response.

434

And that in turn means that if, if,

if you are doing well, if you are

435

having, making no mistake, then.

436

Um, you have to hold in, check

your response, which is, must be

437

much more difficult in the no-go

condition than in the go condition.

438

So the no-go here in this particular

setup is the real challenge, is

439

the more co cognitive control,

heavy ta, uh, aspect of the task.

440

Now, this is the go, no go.

441

So you can also change it, you can

make the, the go and no go equally

442

likely, uh, or the, uh, the no,

no go more likely or whatever.

443

Then you change the character of the task.

444

But we always use this

kind of task in for this.

445

Okay.

446

Yeah.

447

That's the frontal sort of

frontal dis inhibition kind of

448

thing that we would Exactly, yes.

449

We would do in clinical testing.

450

Yeah.

451

Yes, we, because we believe that and, and

we, we, we can find this, uh, that um,

452

if the logo is much more challenging in

this particular setup, then you should.

453

De-noise your brain more.

454

You should be very, you should

I, wanting to identify the

455

signal, uh, and not the noise.

456

And therefore you de-noise

your brain as much as you can.

457

And this is indeed what we find

in the exponent, in the, the

458

flu exponent, as it is called.

459

This is also taken from physics.

460

Um, and it, it analyzes the amount of

signal to noise ratio, or some would

461

say, others would say the amount of, uh,

noise versus noising versus denoising,

462

your brain, uh, and so forth and so on.

463

So whenever you, you are presented with

the no-go signal, you see a much bigger

464

flank rising in this exponent showing

that you de-noise your brain much more

465

than, uh, with a go, with a go signal.

466

So this one aspect, this,

the, the Simon, uh, aspect is.

467

A little bit more

complicated, but not much.

468

Um, so I could present the stimulus

on, on, uh, I, I could give you,

469

let's say two keys left and right,

and then present the stimulus.

470

Uh, and then let's say the

left key is signaled by an X.

471

The right key is signaled

by an O or something.

472

Um, and you could mix that

with a go no-go logic.

473

Um, but in any case, in the, in

the standard task, uh, all you

474

do is you, uh, you randomize

the location of the stimulus.

475

Sometimes you present it on the left and

sometimes you present it on the right.

476

Now what happens and what you

could imagine, uh, yourself, is

477

that if I have to press left,

it's easier, more convincing.

478

To me if the stimulus also appears on the

left and it's, it's a bit harder if it

479

appears on the right, and the opposite

holds for the, for the right response.

480

So in other words, we kind of

automatically decode the location of

481

the stimulus and seem to match it with

a location of the, of the response,

482

which for our stimulus response.

483

I, I said that in the beginning, uh,

this was the beginning of my career.

484

I did a lot of hundreds of Simon tasks.

485

And the reason is that this tells

us something about the relationship

486

between perception and action.

487

That they are not independent,

that they're not kind of totally

488

decoupled, but they always interact

back and forth, back and forth.

489

Uh, and this is one simp very simple

example of, of how you can measure

490

the degree of this interaction.

491

So these are the two aspects, the Simon.

492

You could also make predictions with

regarding to metarol, you could say

493

that the incongruent or incompatible

condition, namely, where the, the key

494

is on the opposite side of the stimulus

is more difficult, more demanding.

495

And so the, the, um, the metarol

measures should show, um,

496

greater denoising of the brain.

497

And this is what you find, even though

this is not always significant because

498

the Simon effect itself is pretty small.

499

Yeah.

500

Amazing.

501

We use it as an indication

of meta control.

502

Yes.

503

And we use it in, uh, several studies.

504

So this is why we are pretty

confident that it actually Yeah.

505

Especially so no-go works pretty well.

506

Yes.

507

Uh, you can perfectly replicate

that over and over again.

508

Uh, so we looked into many studies,

uh, and did some of ourselves.

509

And, and that's always what

you find, uh, if you do this.

510

If you increase the frequency of the

goal, uh, so that the no go is really

511

more demanding regarding control.

512

I see.

513

So in this, so the re-analysis you're

describing in this particular study, yes.

514

It seems so the core result was that the

tDCS reduced that cortical noise, or I

515

guess you could also say increase the, a

periodic exponent, but only when combined

516

with methylphenidate, is that correct?

517

Exactly.

518

Uh, so that logically or theoretically,

both of these factors, namely the

519

stimulate brain stimulation and

the, the medical was chosen because

520

both of them are assumed to operate

on the signal to noise ratio.

521

And there are findings suggesting that,

uh, now that's why we thought, okay.

522

Mm-hmm.

523

Why not using both in order

to see whether they are.

524

They po potentiate each other or

whatever, but the opposite was the case.

525

You see a kind of under

additive, under tivity.

526

So in other words, um, the

stimulation increases the exponent,

527

which means you de-noise your

brain, so produces less noise.

528

Uh, and the same goes for

the medical treatment.

529

Um, but if you combine them and, and,

and then you would expect the, the best

530

denoising situation if the, uh, the,

the medical treatment is combined with

531

a, with a brain stimulation, but this

is not as high as you would expect.

532

So that's what one would call

an under additive combination.

533

It's not that one adds the

exponent and the other adds is also

534

adding something to the exponent.

535

So if you add both, you

have the highest value.

536

No, that's not the case.

537

It's, it is as if there is an upper limit.

538

Uh, perhaps a physical logical

limit that, that physics people

539

may even mathematically describe.

540

Namely, you cannot de-noise

your brain endlessly.

541

So there is some, some limits, some,

542

some order cannot be logically achieved,

and that may also differ from person

543

to person that we cannot judge from

this, uh, sta particular study because

544

we have too few data for each person.

545

But, uh, on average you see this under

additivity, which, which means that.

546

Um, there's only so much we can do.

547

So if you, if you say, I mean, there

are many, many questions to be resolved

548

before one can turn that into treatment.

549

Sure.

550

Mm-hmm.

551

So we don't know how long

this is lasting and so forth.

552

This is something we are

looking into the right now.

553

Um, we are kind of stretching the,

the, the time, uh, more and more,

554

but even if that would be resolved,

um, we cannot, let's say we can

555

only hope to achieve so much.

556

So, uh, we can, things will be better

with the medication and it'll be

557

better with this brain stimulation,

but, uh, whether this achieves

558

extreme levels, we just don't know.

559

There is seems to be an a, a

kind of hardware like limitation.

560

Yeah.

561

Well, it's interesting as well

because it makes me think because

562

of what you were saying at the

beginning about the importance of.

563

The balance between persistence and

flexibility to be suited to whatever is

564

in real time the person's experience.

565

And so I would imagine that something

like cognitive behavioral therapy

566

could be an additive kind of an

approach too, to be able to help people

567

to learn in different situations.

568

How best to kind of approach it and have

that balance between persistence and

569

flexibility, particularly in like an act,

like a school, like a learning setting

570

or, you know, learning the skills in a

new job or something along those lines.

571

Or social, social

intelligence kind of things.

572

Yes.

573

Yeah, I think there, there is, um, we

were also, um, surprised over the years,

574

uh, because in the beginning, so some,

some years back, I was intuitively.

575

I thought that, well, cognitive

control is typically described as

576

something that is, that takes time.

577

So some, so if I look at task

switching, which is assumed to tap

578

into cognitive control, uh, because

you change from one mindset to

579

another in order to do something

else, um, that takes quite some time.

580

And the time it takes is often way higher.

581

Way, way more than the

typical effects we have.

582

So in task switching, if you compare

task repetition, uh, against task

583

switching, you do not get 10, 20, 30

milliseconds like with a Simon house.

584

But you get 100, well, sometimes

500, 600, 700 milliseconds, which for

585

cognitive experimentation person is a lot.

586

It's a, it's a whole world.

587

Um, and that suggests the, and

then you can argue, of course, a

588

mindset, let's say includes many

areas of the brain and rewiring and

589

takes time and so forth and so on.

590

But that's why I thought that,

um, metarol changes also take

591

enormous amounts of time.

592

And then I hoped I could play with

this by, um, having people do,

593

let's say a persistence heavy task.

594

And then squeeze in a flexibility

task and show that there is transfer,

595

even though people, because of inertia

of, of neuro inertia as it were.

596

But that, that's very rare.

597

Uh, so, and it seems that people

immediately attach changes of meta

598

control to stimuli so that the stimulus

at some point is driving the change

599

itself, which is of course very smart.

600

You kind of delegate, uh, the

control or the control of the

601

meta control to your environment.

602

Um, mm-hmm.

603

But, uh, but yeah, I was,

I was surprised by that.

604

Uh, but that's, mm-hmm.

605

Again, again, we, we, the, the

closer we look, we also find that

606

all these metarol changes are

only initiated by the stimulus.

607

Uh mm-hmm.

608

Of course, if you do the, uh, the

stimulation, you can find main effects.

609

So it does change your, your brain, let's

say during the whole block, typically

610

you switch on the apparatus and then

for, let's say 20 minutes or so, uh,

611

and then you're continuously stimulated.

612

Uh, and during that time, um,

of course there is not, not much

613

change, and that elevates or reduces

the level of the foof exponent as

614

a main effect, uh, of that block.

615

But it doesn't, it hardly

interacts with the stimulus.

616

The stimulus, really the driving

guy, which kind of makes the really

617

interesting changes, uh, as if

people would immediately outsource.

618

Their, their control.

619

Hmm.

620

Yeah.

621

As a meditator, it makes me think that

perhaps people who have experience

622

with meditation might, might have

some sort of awareness because the

623

language to me sounds analogous.

624

This idea of metarol or having some

more sort of awareness or mindfulness

625

about how one is actually controlling

the executive function that underlies

626

thought, I suppose in its basic terms.

627

Hmm.

628

Yeah.

629

I, I would assume, I mean, that's why

we, and, and we, we did an FMI study.

630

We, we did many studies with, um,

meditation, but typically with naive

631

participants, uh, until we found

that the effects become smaller and

632

smaller and eventually disappeared.

633

And then I thought, what,

what, what, what's this?

634

And then we asked our experimenters

and they said, well, first we, we

635

attracted all the people who are

enthusiastic about meditation.

636

But now we, you, you guys ran so many

studies that now all we get is people

637

who are totally disgusted and don't

believe a word from what you're saying,

638

and who knows what they're doing.

639

So whether we properly manipulated

the things we wanted to manipulate,

640

one can argue about a lot.

641

Uh, so that, that makes

replication very, very difficult.

642

That's why we, in a recent study, we

actually asked experienced meditators

643

who are from a school or a kind

of, uh, forum where people meet and

644

exchange their experience, and that

that was much more, let's say, stable.

645

Uh, but again, you, I think everyone then

has a particular strategy to get into

646

one or the other medi, meditative mood,

and perhaps they're not even comparable.

647

So that makes it scientifically

very difficult because you don't

648

have the, the, the, the size of the.

649

You don't have the necessary power

to, uh, compare the strategies.

650

Mm-hmm.

651

Mm-hmm.

652

Yeah.

653

Well, I think, you know, I was also

thinking from a clinical perspective,

654

um, I was really, um, gravitated

towards the, the aspects of the

655

discussions in the paper that look

looked at how linkages could be

656

perhaps conceived of between something

like ADHD and higher cortical noise.

657

So more of a flexibility bias on that

spectrum that, uh, what was the term

658

that we were supposed to use now?

659

The, the by by bi polarity or not?

660

Not whatever you want.

661

Yeah.

662

Yeah.

663

Yeah.

664

Yeah, so, so the ADHD, higher

cortical noise, the flexibility

665

bias versus OCD, which would be the

persistence bias more towards that.

666

Yeah.

667

So I was just curious how, how would you

differentially then use metarol informed

668

interventions like tDCS or stimulants,

behavioral therapy, that kind of thing?

669

Yeah, I think for A DHD, indeed,

this kind of stimulation that

670

we've done combining MPH with, uh,

an another tDCS would be ideal.

671

Uh, but in the case of OCD, which

is probably is gravitating towards,

672

um, more persistent and probably

they have already a sort of, um, uh.

673

Sticky.

674

So, uh, too mu too less noise in

the system would be ideal to use.

675

Transcranial random noise stimulations,

which is a relatively novel noninvasive,

676

uh, brain stimulation, which is

able actually to, uh, enhance, uh,

677

do not noise in the particularly,

uh, part of the brain, uh, where

678

the, uh, TROs are, uh, uh, used.

679

And there is actually a new studies,

I think it was in plus biology,

680

uh, which they made this fantastic

link between random noise and they

681

measure the upper periodic exponent.

682

And indeed they found that, uh, uh,

increase the noise in the brain.

683

Yeah.

684

And that might be, of course.

685

With OCD, the, the literature

regarding periodic activity is,

686

uh, um, not very much developed,

but that might be a working idea.

687

To attest their hypothesis that, uh, uh,

uh, transcranial random noise might be

688

helpful to make OCD patient more flexible

to help them, uh, to, uh, to bring

689

them away from their stickiness, right?

690

Yeah.

691

That we, we actually started already,

just recently started to look into, uh,

692

some open source, uh, data, uh, sets.

693

Mm-hmm.

694

But the problem, there are

two problems with this.

695

Yeah.

696

Um, first it was very disappointing,

uh, because almost always they showed,

697

I think, remind me, um, more noise.

698

I think, uh, more, uh, less

knowledge or more noise.

699

More noise.

700

More noise.

701

Almost everyone.

702

So even those pathologies that

we wa that we thought should

703

be on the persistent side.

704

But the problem, there are two problems.

705

Number one, um, it, if

you, if you get, um.

706

EEG data, then you typically get resting

state data and resting state data can

707

only look into trade like preferences.

708

So, uh, and what, what we, however,

and we, we, we do have some few

709

studies where we could predict

a little bit of the variability

710

by using resting state as well.

711

So there is a trade component, but

in comparison, the, the state, so

712

the task specific state component

is much more, much bigger, it

713

producing much bigger effect.

714

So you do find these tiny effects.

715

So if I stimulate your brain with

tDCS, you kind of reduce the noise

716

a little bit, and that is even true

before the stimulus appears, right?

717

So just in the, in the, in the in

between the trials, uh, your brain is

718

just a little bit more deno, and that

could be also even in the resting state.

719

But the, if the stimulus, once the

stimulus appears, boom, it, it goes

720

into a totally different direction.

721

Um, as if it is not the, that, that

there is no standard mode or something

722

that matters so much, but it is a kind

of setting how to process things once

723

you process them, but not before, right?

724

Mm-hmm.

725

And, and if you have that only resting

state to predict, uh, you don't

726

know how little the contribution

of this predictor might be.

727

Uh, and typically those open source

data do not contain meaningfully set

728

up tasks that, that allow us to kind of

compute, uh, the our, our foo component.

729

Second.

730

Typically what is not reported, they

report the diagnosis very specifically.

731

Uh, different kinds of, uh, A DHD

of autism and so forth and so on.

732

That's all fine, but they

typically do not report whether

733

people are on or off medication.

734

Now, of course, if I give you the

right medication, uh, then ideally you

735

should behave like a healthy control.

736

Uh, and then we find no difference,

and then we are disappointed.

737

But that makes no sense.

738

So this makes it difficult.

739

Uh, so, um, that's why we are now

planning bigger studies, uh, ourselves.

740

Uh, but of course then we have to get

in touch with hospitals in, in China

741

and, uh, battle with the language and,

and make sure that the instructions are

742

properly understood by Chinese speaking

participants and so forth and so on.

743

But nevertheless, we have to do this in.

744

The, the data are not of a,

of a quality that we need.

745

What is maybe fun about China?

746

They have a big negative cultural bias

towards pharmacological interventions, but

747

not towards, uh, uh, brain stimulation.

748

Yeah.

749

So they don't, they almost

don't prescribe, um, MPH.

750

For ADHD children, but they

go immediately with the TMS.

751

Some run around during

some run around, yes.

752

The whole school, uh, time and, and

the teacher is kind of monitoring

753

their attention, uh, uh, through

a monitor and, and saying, oh,

754

you're, you're currently distracted.

755

Uh, and they love it.

756

They think, and then if you interview

them, of course in Germany, they would

757

say, oh, you're controlled by the country.

758

And, and so, and the government

and so forth and so on.

759

But if you interview the, the,

the, the, the pupil pupils, they,

760

they say, but isn't it great?

761

They help me to, to make me even better?

762

And so the perspectives

differ dramatically.

763

No, no, that is fascinating that

that's a, an extra fascinating

764

aspect of the conversation.

765

Are these cultural differences

in terms of Absolutely.

766

Es to Yeah.

767

Oh yeah.

768

Fascinating.

769

Because they believe, of course,

in traditional Chinese medicine

770

and in acupuncture, and there is

also this electrical acupuncture.

771

Some, sometimes we are doing

also transcutaneous wagu nerve

772

stimulation, and we explain this,

Hey, it looks like acupuncture.

773

This is here, and you put simply

an electrical impulse, and this

774

is way more acceptable for them as

taking a psychoactive medication.

775

Mm-hmm.

776

So what for example, in journal

is the other way around.

777

Yeah.

778

I think especially for children, NPH is

being prescribed very easily, but the

779

idea of giving electrodes and putting

electricity is, uh, people go crazy.

780

Yeah.

781

Yeah.

782

Control, control, control, yes.

783

It was very fascinating to see.

784

These, uh, opposite these

cultural opposite directions.

785

Yeah.

786

Yeah.

787

It is, it's very interesting.

788

I, I mean, again, you know, I, without

coming across as overly conspirator,

789

conspiratorial, but it is this, it's

just a part of how, I think there's

790

perhaps this unintended consequence

of the pharmaco industrial complex,

791

you know, in North America and Europe,

that that sort of guides mm-hmm.

792

The, the, the learning curriculum

for, for, you know, uh, clinicians.

793

And then that's kind of just how

the practice is sort of structured.

794

And because your neighbor is

doing it the same way and the

795

guidelines and the research.

796

Yes.

797

It's all kind of, there's, there's some

kind of capture, I guess you would say,

798

you know, so it's fascinating to see

how in a society where perhaps there's

799

not the same kind of capture, maybe

you could argue a different type of

800

capture, but it's not gonna steer people

towards different treatment options.

801

But the, the, the beauty of it

is, is that, and as, as you're.

802

Explaining here, and so fascinating

because of your real world experience

803

in, in, in China and then also in Europe

is, is combining the best of both worlds

804

really, is what we're looking at, right?

805

Yeah.

806

Yeah.

807

Yeah.

808

Very enlightening.

809

Yeah, absolutely.

810

For sure.

811

Yeah.

812

Um, yeah, we're getting close to the end

here, but I was just thinking, one thing

813

that has been coming to my mind over

and over again is, is this importance

814

of the speci, the task specificity

in terms of yes, metacognition, I

815

suppose you would say not only in,

in this kind of research setting, but

816

also obviously in the real wor real

world setting, and also how, um, Dr.

817

Hommel, that you were just describing

this idea of a rapid, ongoing kind of

818

feedback loop that's happening mm-hmm.

819

With the attention to the task

and then the feedback that, that

820

the individual would, would just

have automatically happening.

821

So that would kind of keep them on course.

822

Yes.

823

But does that seem to be an important

component of, of the findings and how it

824

would be applied to real world settings?

825

Well, uh, yeah, obviously, uh, I

mean, ideally, uh, you want, let's

826

say, if you want to avoid the.

827

Um, I mean, especially if you look,

if you compare classical, uh, our

828

classical medicine with, uh, let's say

more traditional or nature related,

829

uh, approaches like the, the, um, uh,

Chinese, uh, traditional medicine, um,

830

the, there is an interesting difference

in the role that patients play.

831

Namely, they are in the traditional one.

832

They are the agent who believes

in self-empowerment, whereas our.

833

Often much better functioning, I'm

afraid, especially if it comes to

834

cancer and, and all these nasty things.

835

Um, but it, it degrades the patient into

a very passive role, uh, of the, of the

836

eminent doctor who tells you what the

truth is, and then you have to follow

837

the instruction and so forth and so on.

838

And this is what, what certainly the

anthropo approaches in Germany are

839

particularly interested in, and what

they're find appalling is this kind

840

of degra degradation of patients

into a passive role of receivers.

841

Mm-hmm.

842

And so in the end, what we

want, what we should want is.

843

Not only to understand how metacontrol

works, how it can be improved, how

844

it or, uh, let's say optimized.

845

I don't, I don't think

one can optimize things.

846

This is the against the Metarol logic,

but for particular situations and for

847

particular tasks you can optimize.

848

Um, but to give that under the

control of the, of the agent.

849

And for that, we, we, and that's why

we are currently working on a direct,

850

uh, neurofeedback loops where we have

a very talented, uh, uh, student who

851

is mathematically very skilled to

optimize the speed of how much you can,

852

let's say, take out of the, uh, eg cap

and feed into a game or some display

853

that allows you rocket to, to, to, to

change, let's say, to drive the rocket

854

or the car, uh, in there or there.

855

And by doing so, you drive,

you actually drive it with your

856

meter control proof exponent.

857

So if that, once you master that,

and again, we have, we do baby steps.

858

Uh, we are, that's the very first study.

859

Uh, we have to do all the validation

and everything, but the idea is.

860

Uh, to provide people with a very

fast, uh, feedback loop that allows

861

them to control their metro control

parameters themselves, uh, at will.

862

Mm-hmm.

863

Uh, and, uh, of course currently this is

too clumsy, too big to, you need lots of

864

operators, but basically you need only

one electrode or two, uh, because we

865

always find one area to be, uh, involved

that that's relatively easy to pick.

866

This could be mobile.

867

Uh, and it, uh, if, if the display

could be, be very simple, that

868

could be connected to a smartwatch.

869

Uh, so people could very easily, I mean,

of course it looks funny if you have, but

870

well, people will get over this if they

have really big problems to, to tackle.

871

Uh, and certainly in, in, in China,

they wouldn't mind at all to run

872

around with a headband or whatever.

873

Um, but, but this is

what we are currently at.

874

Uh, I cannot yet report.

875

I mean, it, it, it seems to work in

some people, so we have pilots, but

876

of course, this is only a promise.

877

Uh, and I hope in one year or

so we, we have, um, much more

878

interesting data to offer.

879

Uh, but you're certainly right.

880

I mean, basically this is the way to go.

881

Mm-hmm.

882

If you want to leave it to the people

to make the decision what they, what

883

they want to do with themselves.

884

Mm-hmm.

885

Yeah.

886

I, especially, I, uh, especially

with young, younger people, you

887

know, giving them the agency to take

control over their own health is a

888

big part of improving their health.

889

Right.

890

And not just yes, just having

a passive approach, for sure.

891

Yeah.

892

And it's, it's amazing because I imagine

that the potential applications as

893

far as this kind of brain computer

interface are pretty endless.

894

It's fascinating.

895

Mm-hmm.

896

Yeah.

897

So, okay.

898

Well, yeah.

899

Yeah.

900

Go ahead.

901

Sorry.

902

Mm-hmm.

903

No, no, no, no, no.

904

Yeah.

905

Yeah.

906

Okay.

907

Well, no, I, if you have, I mean, I

think, uh, we're just kind of coming

908

up to the end here, so if you had

some final thoughts or you wanted to

909

share something, that would be great.

910

Yeah.

911

No, I mean, the, in, in, in

general, I think what, what I

912

like about this approach, uh.

913

Again, there has been groundwork

that needs to be done.

914

But what I like about it

is, is, is two things.

915

First, to combine general insights

into the laws of the brain and the

916

neuroscience, um, to combine it

with a, a, an, an eye for individual

917

variability and differences.

918

And that of course also covers the

cultural differences, uh, in the end,

919

uh, that we discussed, which become

more and more important in research.

920

Uh, and second to become, let's

say, much more specific with

921

respect to the mechanisms.

922

So not to start with fundamental,

uh, logical categories that we

923

made up at home, uh, that may

be of some use, but perhaps not.

924

But, uh, let's say to start the

opposite way, to try to recall.

925

From what we know about the brain, uh,

and, and that limits our, the, the,

926

let's say, the, the jumps that we can

make because we only know so much,

927

but it, it grounds our thinking much

better than I think the, was kind of

928

the opposite, uh, uh, top down approach.

929

So these are the things that I think

our science needs, um, and that's

930

why we find it, this, this approach

to be particularly interesting.

931

But there may may be many others.

932

So everyone is invited to

kind of revolutionize our

933

science to make it better.

934

Well, that's great.

935

That's a, a great way to finish off.

936

Thanks so much for summarizing that.

937

Um, thank you both once again for

sharing your valuable time with us

938

and helping us to understand this

really fascinating research and all

939

these potential applications and as

well as the cross-cultural aspects,

940

which is, is, uh, fascinating and,

uh, wasn't, um, I was, I was hoping to

941

talk a little bit about that, so I'm

happy we're able to, and I just need

942

to add so much to a rich conversation.

943

So thanks once again for joining us today.

944

Thank you.

945

Thank you for having us.

946

Yes.

947

Great.

948

So that was our conversation with

Professor Hommel and Professor Colzato.

949

Three takeaways for listeners practice.

950

If you're clinicians, research if

you're academics, or if you're a

951

member of the public and you're

interested in neuroscience.

952

So the first takeaway I would

say is that metacontrol isn't

953

just an abstract kind of concept.

954

It can be modulated, and studies are

showing that anodal and Methylphenidate

955

can reduce cortical noise During task

execution instead of just at baseline,

956

that the, aperiodic exponent is a

promising EEG marker that tracks these

957

shifts, especially at the fCZ area.

958

But it does need replication and

standardization of course, as much of

959

this kind of research before routine

clinical use, um, can be recommended.

960

But these kinds of clinical

applications are certainly on the

961

horizon and uh, it's very exciting.

962

And then the third thing is that,

that kind of translation is gonna

963

hinge on safety, but individualization

that we spoke a lot about, um,

964

in terms of the neurostimulation.

965

So the correct montage, the correct

dose, the biomarkers that might

966

suggest who are going to be.

967

Uh, likely to have positive

treatment responses depending on

968

different patient phenotypic factors.

969

So again, I'd just invite viewers and

listeners to check out, um, the content

970

from the lab that I'll put in the

show notes in this particular study.

971

I'll put a link to that, uh, from

the journal brain stimulation.

972

Um, yeah.

973

And, uh, again, if you've enjoyed

this, please, uh, like and subscribe.

974

Please, uh, ask questions and leave

comments in the comment section below.

975

Uh, anything that you'd like us

to review in future episodes.

976

And thanks again for joining us

on the Neurostimulation Podcast.

977

We'll see you next time.

978

Thanks so much, both of you.

979

Really appreciate it.

980

Thanks for your time.

981

Okay.

982

Yeah.

983

We hope it's useful.

984

Useful.

985

Yes, and sure.

986

And it has been nice, conversation,

so thank you for having us.

987

Definitely.

988

Thanks so much.

989

Okay.

990

Byebye.