Talk:Brainwave entrainment
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brainwave entrainment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Marked for cleanup?
editMarked for cleanup? What does that mean? This is a perfectly fine entry. Additional information wouldn't hurt, but it shouldn't be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.65.59.153 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 January 2006 UTC.
- Agreed. This is a good article. Was also marked for jargon - I could understand the technical stuff, and I'm certainly no expert. Someone was being a bit liberal with their tags. Please discuss here before marking it. Zarkme (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- very little of the article is actually about its subject, and what is, is badly sourced. it needs a ton of cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with jytdog here. The central aspects, i.e. that this entrainment even exists, is not sourced at all. Almost all of the rest is not about entrainment directly. I will re-mark it for cleanup.Marsaute (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
What about centerpointe.com?
editWhy you mentioned only HemiSync, Immrama, and not Centerpointe Reasearch Institute— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.228.37 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
References
editCommercial sites selling a product are not reliable sources. There is a list of "studies" with no citations for the studies or any secondary sources that have found the conclusions of the studies valid or noteworthy. Self published original research is not a reliable source. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone specify why the sources are not reliable? There are several journal articles referenced from what I can see, but without in-depth knowledge of the field it's hard to say how credible a journal is. Andreas Mueller (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
form/flow is not great yet.
editEntrainment section should obviously come first. Minaural and isochronic tones need to be mentioned in the discussion of binaural tones, which needs to be a subsection of the music section anyway. Also, Intermittent Photic Stimulation (IPS) is very important and must be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall44 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Of interest
editOf interest may be Monroe institute#Hemi-Sync and Chandra Stone, Phyllis Thomas, Dennis McClain-Furmanski, & James E. Horton (2002). "EEG oscillations and binaural beat as compared with electromagnetic headphones and air-conduction headphones", Psychophysiology vol 39, pp. S80
. —PaleoNeonate – 06:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)