Andrew Huberman· PhD
So, in this nature paper from 2011, which we first treated tinnitus in animals, what we saw that was most correlated, was actually receptive field size.
Loading…
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.
So, in this nature paper from 2011, which we first treated tinnitus in animals, what we saw that was most correlated, was actually receptive field size.
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.
So, what we're trying to do is narrow receptive fields, - Mm-hmm. - ... and shift the map. So, to find that big blue area where everything's the same way? - Mm-hmm. - Let's make diversity.