 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Binaural beats page were merged into Beat (acoustics) and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binaural beats redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Fringe theory
editThis article is tagged with a notice saying that it may include fringe theories. However nowhere on this talk page or anywhere is it indicated which information is "fringe" and which information is reliable. Is it all fringe? Is some part of it fringe? I'm researching this topic and it would be helpful to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.131.214.125 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @12.131.214.125: It got added with this edit, along with no explanation of what the editor was getting at. This person has never edited anything else under this identity, so I'm just going to remove both those boxes and ask for an explanation from anyone who restores them. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Troubling tendency on WP to flag anything unusual as "fringe" or "pseudoscience" with *ahem* documentation providing objective proof of purported conclusion. I suggest going through this page with a good faith edit then remove the tag.Kortoso (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the article and done some tidying up. This material is almost all well-documented with (sometimes excessive) references to reliable types of sources. Although I haven't retrieved many of those sources, I see no reason to brand this page as "fringe". Each possibly contentious claim (with the exception of that of a consensus on the interpretation of EEG waves) is stated rather cautiously. Absent any specific problem text being pointed out, I feel confident in removing the "fringe" notice. Please don't reinstate that notice without prior discussion here on the talk page. yoyo (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Tho' I have left the 'unreliable sources" notice intact for now, even tho' it seems like a vague hand-waving allegation of impropriety rather than a specific criticism. yoyo (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Only men listen to binaural beats
editUser:Johnsgreat what is the source that says that only men listen to binaural beats? Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Studies
edit"It is clear that binaural beats do not represent a one-size-fits-all enhancement technique. They can be effective in enhancing brainstorm-like creative thinking in individuals with low striatal dopamine levels, but they can at the same time impair performance in exactly the same kind of task in others. On the one hand, this calls for more care in the propagation of binaural beats as a cognitive-enhancement method and a better understanding of the underlying neural and cognitive mechanisms. On the other hand, however, it also implies that previous failures to find positive effects of binaural beats on cognitive performance need not be taken as evidence against the efficiency of the manipulation. In fact, careful selection of individuals involving a systematic evaluation of their cognitive control profiles is likely to yield evidence of cognitive enhancement, even under conditions that proved ineffective by previous research."[1]
"As many factors impact upon the efficacy of monaural and binaural-beat stimulation, a more in-depth reporting of beat stimulation parameters and protocols would offer the possibility to limit the methodological inconsistencies that may explain many of the contradictory outcomes reported in the literature. Most importantly, electrophysiological investigations comparing the effects of auditory beats under different stimulation conditions and parameters are still rare. Such studies are necessary as a fundament to allow the development of mechanistic hypotheses explaining the behavioral outcomes of beat stimulation."[2]
References
- ^ Reedijk, SA (2013). "The impact of binaural beats on creativity". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7: 786. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00786.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Chaieb, L (2015). "Auditory Beat Stimulation and its Effects on Cognition and Mood States". Frontiers in Psychiatry. 6: 70. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00070.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortoso (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 March 2017(UTC)
- Please sign your posts.
- This publisher has been discussed a great deal -- the general consensus in WP is that Frontiers Media journals are not to be replied on generally, and especially not if they are the only source for something. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing
editI started working over the sourcing yesterday and will continue that today. Lots of old, primary sources have been cited, and WP:SYN violated in many places, building arguments by tying primary sources together.
There was also a bunch of OFFTOPIC stuff here that was actually about Neuro-linguistic programming. That belongs in some other article per WP:ONEWAY Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
History section
editThis is mostly a history of the science behind sound localization. Am going to move it there after i finish cleaning up the sourcing... Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)