Throbbing_Smarton

Is there a published research article you can point us to?

I suspect there isn't. If they had actual, high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence to support the claims they're making, they would probably lead with that, don't you think? Instead, there are repeated references to NSF grants as if that somehow supports the claims being made. There is a lot of evasion of questions going on in this thread, and a lot of imprecise, pseudosciencey words that don't really mean anything.

As a person with significant ADHD/executive processing problems, I sincerely hope that I am mistaken, but this whole thing reeks of bullshit.

---

EDIT: It is worth noting that these guys are actually selling a product -- a product with implied (and, potentially, explicit) claims, but no evidentiary support. Because I can't read their minds, I'm not going to claim that they are committing intentional, conscious fraud; that would be adopting a burden of proof that I can't possibly hope to meet. But that said, they are behaving in a manner that is indistinguishable from any other petty medical fraudster, shyster, or charlatan; they make nebulous claims that their product can fix something that's wrong with you, and to support their claims, what do they offer? Not compelling evidence, or peer reviewed data! They link to a glorified press release with colorful infographics, but no real data. In my opinion they are, at best, naively committing "pious fraud." At worst (and, in my opinion, most likely), they are scam artists preying on a vulnerable population, peddling snake oil that will do absolutely nothing. I can't know which is the case, but either way: caveat emptor!

EDIT2: FWIW, I'm not a working scientist; I am just a nerdy science enthusiast, and a skeptical activist. I owe my "BS detector" to the likes of Carl Sagan, the SGU, Brian Dunning, Skepchick, and other such luminaries in both the skeptical movement, and the scientific world at large. If you like science, and you care about believing true things, disbelieving false things, and how to tell the difference, then maybe check out what skepticism is all about.

EDIT3: This is slightly off topic, but since this post really got some traction, I want to mention something that another person brought to my attention via a PM... I realize that my own gushing enthusiasm for skepticism may be a little off-putting, or seem pretentious to some, but it's important to note that I am not necessarily a "stereotypical skeptic;" there really is no such thing. The "skeptical movement" is made up of all kinds of people, from hot-tempered firebrands who get off on -- ahem -- "pwning" others in debates, to mild-mannered academics who simply care about the precision and accuracy of data, to parents and teachers who want to raise a generation of kids who are scientifically literate critical thinkers, to energetic anti-quack/anti-pseudoscience/anti-con artist crusaders, to political activists who feel that banishing misinformation and propaganda will lead people to make better decisions in the voting booth, and everything in between. We skeptics are a group with a diverse range of interests and skills, but if there are common threads amongst us, they would probably be our appreciation for science and public education, our understanding of the importance of critical thinking, and (perhaps most of all) our acknowledgement that nobody -- not me, not you, not even the most cynical, hard-nosed, well-read, evidence-obsessed person amongst us -- is immune to being fooled, or to committing errors in thinking or judgment. "It takes all kinds," as they say, and there's a place at the table for skeptics of every stripe. We really are doing good works here, and everybody, from career academics to lay persons, can contribute if they wish.

We use AI to generate music specifically to help people focus, relax and sleep, backed by science.

Could you explain your use of the term "backed by science?" Do you mean "supported by evidence?"

In particular, our popular Focus music is useful for people who must get through a lot of work without distraction, procrastination, or boredom.

What, exactly, do you mean by "useful?" Do you mean to say that listening to your music decrease distractability, procrastination, or boredom in test groups? If so, how do you quantify "boredom" and "procrastination" and "distractability?" Did you test for these things individually? How big is the effect size? And how big were your experimental groups?

This music is uniquely designed to impact neural oscillations

What do you mean by that, exactly?

---

You seem to be making some pretty big claims here. I'm sure you would agree that skepticism is warranted when encountering claims that a product or service can "improve brain function" or whatever, given that these things are almost never supported by quality evidence. "Brain training" apps/games, "mental clarity" supplements, etc etc? I, personally, have never seen one that wasn't bunk, propped up by small, low-quality studies designed to give the public and the lay press the appearence of legitimacy without actually being rigorous.

Posting your actual research would be really helpful; I am sure I'm not the only one here who would be interested to review your methods for rigor. As a person with significant ADHD, I very, very much hope this turns out to be a real effect, but the reasons to be skeptical are numerous.

TL;DR: Please post the published, peer-reviewed data that details your methods, and supports the positive claims you are making.

Calling something fake without being able to prove it seems wrong.

Intellectually, there's nothing wrong with extending a hypotheses or even a "gut feeling" so long as you acknowledge them them as what they are. Politically? Well, that's another matter entirely.

That’s a pretty good ratio

Gonna need you to show your work.

> Instead, there are repeated references to NSF grants as if that somehow supports the claims being made

The NSF grants are to do the studies you're asking about...

"Hey where are the studies?"

"We just got a grant to do them."

"This reeks of bullshit!"

Generally speaking, you get grants to do further research after you conduct a pilot study that suggests something interesting might be going on. For all intents and purposes, pilot studies are not "real research;" they merely help you determine if there is a signal in the noise -- if there is something there worth doing actual research on. By definition, pilot studies are not sufficient evidence upon which to base claims, or draw conclusions.

If these people presented themselves in a more reserved manner, like "So, early investigation suggests that there might be something here, and now we just secured funding to conducting research which would allow us to determine if there's actually an effect," the situation in this thread would be entirely different. But that's not what they're doing. It appears that they are claiming an effect without evidence to support it. That's a no-no, and a red flag. But the biggest red flag of all? They are selling a product, charging money for a product with no evidence that it does what they claim.

---

^{edit: precision}