The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Well, what Li-Huei Tsai and colleagues have beautifully shown is that by delivering certain patterns of light flicker, so lights going on and off at a particular frequency, the brain as a whole starts to entrain, meaning it matches to those particular patterns of light flicker, even though many of the brain areas that do this are not directly within the visual system or visual pathway.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And I find these studies so exciting because, first of all, they're non-invasive, right? There's no drilling through the skull. They are very tractable in the experimental sense, meaning that you can imagine that if 40 hertz stimulation turns out to be the very best stimulation protocol to induce these gamma oscillations, well, great, but because it's non-invasive, it's fairly easy to explore 50 hertz stimulation, 100 hertz stimulation, 20 hertz stimulation, and to do that with different wavelengths of light.