神经科学与心理学2019ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
入侵大脑
Hacking the Brain
入门 · 约 25 分钟读完前置知识：基础生物学、认知科学常识、证据分级意识
导读
这篇 PMC 文章讨论“大脑黑客”即认知增强，梳理运动、咖啡因/茶、游戏、营养补充等对认知表现的作用，并强调证据强弱、剂量、副作用与安慰剂效应。它更像一篇综述而非单一实验，核心倾向是常见基础方法较可靠，其他增强手段多需谨慎。
HN 关注点：可操作的自我增强手段（如近红外光）和认知增强的边界与代价，讨论从个人实验延伸到 Flynn effect 及“增强”是否沦为生产力工具。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 2 亲历 1
亲历分享近红外光自实验，称其显著提升编码耐力，但属于个人经验。
我在文章里没找到近红外辐射的引用。我把近红外当作大脑黑客手段：用便宜的 850nm LED 照额头。过去两年，这让我能连续数周每天编码 12 小时以上，只有轻微认知下降。我并不真想这样，但有时有用。开始近红外 routine（隔天约 5 分钟）前，我每天最多编码 5-6 小时；比如编码 8 小时后会明显认知和情绪下降，第二天可能得少做。现在醒着就能高效，副作用很小。近红外安全（数千项研究只显示很轻微副作用），甚至用于治疗阿尔茨海默病。我不懂为何益处没更广为人知——对某些人这是改变生活的。旁注：850nm 光对我比 830nm 好得多。
manmal查看英文原文
I haven’t found near infrared radiation referenced in the article - I‘m using near infrared as a brain hack, by shining a cheap 850nm LED light on my forehead. This has, over the last 2 years, enabled me to code for weeks on end, for 12+ hours a day, with only minor cognitive decline. It’s not something I really want to do, but sometimes it’s useful. Before I started the near infrared routine (~5 minutes every other day), 5-6 hours of coding per day was all I could do - eg after coding for 8h, I noticed serious cognitive and emotional decline, and might need to do less the following day. Not anymore - nowadays I can be productive whenever I’m awake, with little side effects. Near infrared radiation is safe (thousands of studies demonstrated only very mild side effects), and is even used to treat Alzheimer’s. I have no idea why its beneficial effects are not more widely known - for some people, it’s life changing. Sidenote: 850nm light works way better for me than 830nm.
质疑质疑认知提升是否在不可测量的能力上存在代价或权衡。
我有个关于大脑黑客的 tangential 问题。Flynn effect 说自 20 世纪初以来平均智商每十年增加 3 分，意味着我们的曾祖父母平均而言相比今天会被视为智力障碍。某些生化解释说明 raw neurophysiological gains（如 20 世纪初碘强化增加了 5 分）。所以我的问题是：对那些无法由生化增强解释的部分，是否在更不可测的东西上存在同等认知代价？也就是说，我们的大脑像肌肉、信息时代像超级健身房？还是在其他方面（如动手、建社区）相比曾祖父母变得“精神受损”？我想象神经可塑性大脑会利用所有 real-estate。若是，会不会只是我们在可测方面增长，在不可测方面“受损”？听起来有点 Ludditic，也许专家能评。
curo查看英文原文
I have a tangential question around brain hacking. The Flynn effect says we're gaining an avg of 3 IQ pts every decade since the early 20th century. Meaning our great grandparents, on average, would be considered mentally handicapped compared to today's intellect. Now certain biochemical explanations for the Flynn effect explain raw neurophysiological gains (e.g., iodine fortification in the early 20th century added 5 pts). So my question: for whatever isn't explained by biochemical enhancement, is there an equal cognitive tradeoff in something less measurable than IQ? I.e., do our brains act like muscle and the info age as a super gym? Or are we becoming "mentally impaired" compared to our great grandparents in other aspects (e.g., working with our hands, building communities, etc)? I imagine our neuro-plastic brains try to make use of all of its real-estate. If so, then could it just be that we're growing in measurable ways, and becoming "mentally impaired" in non-measurable ways? Sounds Ludditic, maybe an expert can weigh in
质疑批评把大脑“增强”窄化为生产力工具，背离原始意义。
真需要一种特别的心态，才能把原本为了好玩、颠覆和/或灵性（娱乐性药物）、已存在数十年甚至数百年的东西，变成又一个在周五晚上把你的 React 生产力提升 12.3% 的工具，还冠以“增强”或“黑客”的新品牌。因为这种“表现”提升还能用于什么别的目的？
throwawawathrow查看英文原文
It really takes a special kind of mind to take something originally intended to be fun, subversive and/or spiritual (recreational drugs) that's existed for decades or even centuries, and turn it into yet another tool to boost your React productivity by 12.3% on Friday evenings, under the new brand of 'enhancement' or 'hacking'. Because to what other end would that 'performance' boost be put to use?
支持概括文章实用结论：基础方法有效，其他增强手段证据不足需谨慎。
给不想读全文的人：经常用脑做多种任务、喝咖啡或茶、打电子游戏、锻炼，并给大脑适当营养或适量补充剂。补充剂太多或太少会有负面或无效果。其他方法研究不足，且可能有你不想要的副作用。更别说还有安慰剂效应。如果你之前不知道这些，那就去读吧，可能会有所收获。
CodiePetersen查看英文原文
For those who don't want to read the whole thing. Use your brain regularly on many types of tasks, drink coffee or tea, play video games, exercise, and provide your brain with either proper nutrients or appropriate levels of supplements. Too much or too little supplements will have negative or no effects. Everything else doesn't have enough research and some side effects might not be what you wanted. Not to mention there are placebo effects as well. If you didn't know that before then go ahead and read it. You might get something from it.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2019Hacker News 讨论帖389 分 · 143 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选