[_3yjt]

The paper's motivation is to explore the new coded display, and they are doing that by exploring an aspect that they care about. That aspect is very specifically well-defined, and if you want to show whether a display has the same effect or not, then we need to look into it. But at no point is the experiment itself relating to any kind of display tech.

I mean, they are not even using a screen during the study, they are using a projector. How are you going to even make the claim that this is display technology specific when it is not using a display?!

[demosthanos]

Did you actually read the study? I assumed you did and so I read every word so I could engage with you on it, but it's really feeling like you skimmed it looking for it to prove what you thought it would prove. It's not even all that long, and it's worth reading in full to understand what they're saying.

I started to write out another comment but it ended up just being a repeat of what I wrote above. Since we're going in circles I think I'm going to leave it here. Read the study, or at least read the extracts that I put above. They don't really leave room for ambiguity.

[_3yjt]

Edit: I dropped the points on the details, just to focus on the main point. Rest assured that I read the paper, I was arguing in good faith, and that after a bit more thinking I understand your criticism of my interpretation. I don’t think the criticism of the research being unable to generalized is warranted, considering the experimental design. But we aren’t going to agree on that. The difference in our thinking seems to be the probability of the similar effect showing up in daily lives. I know the projector was emulating the coded display, but my point is that it was reasonably easy to do it, and the same setup could conceivably show up easily in different way. Not to mention that the researchers specifically said all the displays in their office had the effect, so it is common within displays itself.

I think if we continue talking, we will keep running in circles. So let’s drop the details on research: it is there, we can both read it. Here is what I was trying to convey since the beginning:

- If you think the (original) article is an ads, with the writing not up to scientific standard: sure, I am ambivalent about the article itself

- If you think the gist of the article and their recommendation is wrong, I mildly disagree with you

- If you think led-flickering affecting people is in the same ballpark of concern about Wifi or GMOs, I violently disagree with you.

LEDs are new, and so the high frequency related research are not too numerous, but for the few exist, they generally point to a higher threshold of perceiving than previously thought. As for the health-effect, I believe that part is more extrapolation than researched (since those can only come after the more generic research on perceiving). So the final assessment is: how bad was the article in presenting information the way they did.