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.