“Dance” has been associated with many psychophysiological and medical health effects. However, varying definitions of what constitute “dance” have led to a rather heterogenous body of evidence about such potential effects, leaving the picture piecemeal at best. It remains unclear what exact parameters may be driving positive effects. We believe that this heterogeneity of evidence is partly due to a lack of a clear definition of dance for such empirical purposes. A differentiation is needed between (a) the effects on the individual when the activity of “dancing” is enjoyed as a dancer within different dance domains (e.g., professional/”high-art” type of dance, erotic dance, religious dance, club dancing, Dance Movement Therapy (DMT), and what is commonly known as hobby, recreational or social dance), and (b) the effects on the individual within these different domains, as a dancer of the different dance styles (solo dance, partnering dance, group dance; and all the different styles within these). Another separate category of dance engagement is, not as a dancer, but as a spectator of all of the above. “Watching dance” as part of an audience has its own set of psychophysiological and neurocognitive effects on the individual, and depends on the context where dance is witnessed. With the help of dance professionals, we first outline some different dance domains and dance styles, and outline aspects that differentiate them, and that may, therefore, cause differential empirical findings when compared regardless (e.g., amount of interpersonal contact, physical exertion, context, cognitive demand, type of movements, complexity of technique and ratio of choreography/improvisation). Then, we outline commonalities between all dance styles. We identify six basic components that are part of any dance practice, as part of a continuum, and review and discuss available research for each of them concerning the possible health and wellbeing effects of each of these components, and how they may relate to the psychophysiological and health effects that are reported for “dancing”: (1) rhythm and music, (2) sociality, (3) technique and fitness, (4) connection and connectedness (self-intimation), (5) flow and mindfulness, (6) aesthetic emotions and imagination. Future research efforts might take into account the important differences between types of dance activities, as well as the six components, for a more targeted assessment of how “dancing” affects the human body.

Background With increasing obese populations worldwide, developing interventions to modulate food-related brain processes and functions is particularly important. Evidence suggests that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may modulate the reward–control balance towards facilitation of cognitive control and possible suppression of reward-related mechanisms that drive food cue-induced craving. This protocol describes a clinical trial that investigates the neurocognitive mechanisms of action for tDCS to modulate food cue-reactivity and cravings in people with obesity. Method The NeuroStim-Obesity trial is a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind single-session tDCS trial targeting food craving in those with obesity or overweighed. Once randomized, 64 adults with obesity or overweighed complete one session in which they receive either active or sham tDCS over the DLPFC (anode F4 and cathode F3, 2 mA intensity for 20 min). The primary outcome is change in neural response to the food cue-reactivity task in the ventral striatum after a single-session bilateral tDCS compared to sham stimulation. Secondary outcomes include changes in food craving evaluated by the Food Craving Questionnaire-State (FCQ-S). We will also explore the predictive role of brain structure and functional networks assessed by structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during both task performance and the resting-state that are acquired pre- and post-intervention to predict response to tDCS. Discussion The results will provide novel insight into neuroscience for the efficacy of tDCS and will advance the field towards precision medicine for obesity. Exploratory results will examine the potential predictive biomarkers for tDCS response and eventually provide personalized intervention for the treatment of obesity. Trial registration Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) IRCT20121020011172N4. Retrospectively registered on 4 June 2020

Is the use of psychological and neuroscientific methods for neuromarketing research always aligned with the principles of ethical research practice? Some neuromarketing endeavours have passed from informing consumers about available options, to helping to market as many products to consumers as possible. Needs are being engineered, using knowledge about the human brain to increase consumption further, regardless of individual, societal and environmental needs and capacities. In principle, the ground ethical principle of any scientist is to further individual, societal and environmental health and well-being with their work. If their findings can be used for the opposite, this must be part of the scientist’s considerations before engaging in such research and to make sure that the risks for misuse are minimised. Against this backdrop, we provide a series of real-life examples and a non-exhaustive literature review, to discuss in what way some practices in the neuromarketing domain may violate the Helsinki Declaration of Experimentation with Human Subjects. This declaration was set out to regulate biomedical research, but has since its inception been applied internationally also to behavioural and social research. We illustrate, point by point, how these ground ethical principles should be applied also to the neuromarketing domain. Indisputably, the growth in consumption is required due to current prevalent economical models. Thus, in the final part of the paper, we discuss how alternative models may be promotable to a larger public, aided by more ethical marketing endeavours, based on neuroscientific discoveries about the human brain. We propose this as a philosophical question, a point of discussion for the future, to make neuromarketing as a discipline, fit for the future, respecting the ethical implications of this research.

Background: Obesity is one of the most serious public health concerns worldwide. Considering the multifactorial nature and increasing prevalence of obesity, many techniques have been proposed for its treatment, ranging from behavioral interventions to surgeries, but they are often ineffective, invasive, and costly. Furthermore, relapse and weight regain are common. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques hold promise for modulating food-related brain processes and functions in these patients, potentially through increasing top-down control in response to food cue that supports reduction in calorie intake. Previous findings revealed that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), a target site related to executive functions that support cognitive control of food craving, modulates the reward–control balance towards facilitation of cognitive control and possibly suppression of reward-related mechanisms that drive food cue-induced craving. However, understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms of tDCS over DLPFC on the brain networks of food craving remains largely unknown. Thus, an experimental clinical trial investigating the modulatory effects of tDCS over food cue-reactivity seems promising. Method: The NeuroStim-Obesity trial is a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind single session tDCS trial targeting food craving in those with obesity. Once randomized, a total of 64 subjects (age range 18–61 years) with obesity (Body Mass Index (BMI) between 25-35 kg/m2) complete one session in which they receive either active or sham tDCS over the DLPFC. Active tDCS consisted of 2 mA of current applied continuously for 20 minutes with the anode placed over F4 and the cathode over F3 according to the 10–20 EEG system. The primary outcome is change in neural response to the food cue-reactivity task in the ventral striatum after a single session bilateral tDCS compared to sham stimulation. Secondary outcomes include changes in food craving evaluated by Food Craving Questionnaire-State (FCQ-S). We will also explore the predictive role of brain structural and functional networks assessed by structural, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during both task performance and the resting-state that are acquired pre- and post-intervention to predict response to tDCS.Discussion: The results will provide novel insight into neuroscience for the efficacy of tDCS and will advance the field towards precision medicine for obesity. Exploratory results will examine the potential predictive biomarkers for tDCS response, and eventually to provide personalized intervention for treatment of obesity.Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) Identifier: IRCT20121020011172N4 at June 4, 2020, https://www.irct.ir/trial/45482. This protocol was prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines (Chan et al., 2013a, 2013b).Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the “Cognitive Science and Technologies Council (CSTC) of Iran” to Masoud Nosratabadi at University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran.