Recent comments in /f/science

Rebelgecko t1_j6vyiga wrote

My intuition is that exposing someone to a flashing light and then asking them to do a timed "where's Waldo" style exercise would actually harm their performance compared to doing it without any light at all. Obviously I could be totally wrong, but to a layman like me it seems like an odd thing to take for granted.

24

GlinnTantis t1_j6vtgn6 wrote

Loose almonds and kids with nut allergies. The city would have a hell of a law suit should a kid die from an almond they got from the park. Plenty of other non-nut bearing trees to use.

1

DentalBoiDMD t1_j6vnqnu wrote

how can they be so sure that randomized is equivalent to non-strobing? i mean you can't just assume that randomized = no strobing. you even said it yourself that it "might as well have been without", so you don't know for sure which leaves a huge hole in this experiment because it's already based off assumptions that aren't proven yet.

i feel like you'd want to find significance between normal non-strobing and strobing environments before you measure the differences between lights strobing at different rhythms. How can they verify that randomized strobes didn't decrease cognitive function instead of rhythms helping?

its like if i wanted to see if a program helped kids to better in school, it would be useless to test between different programs when im not sure how the students were doing before they started it

right?

20

personman t1_j6vjbg4 wrote

I'm extremely confused by seemingly directly conflicting claims in the article, which no one seems to be discussing.

The experiment described, and the headline, seem to be about "syncing up" with a pulse at your alpha troughs. But then quotes from the scientists talk about "presenting information at your natural frequency", which seems to have nothing to do with the study at all? Like, the learning tasks weren't modulated based on the participant's rhythm at all, right?

11