how can they be so sure that randomized is equivalent to non-strobing? i mean you can't just assume that randomized = no strobing. you even said it yourself that it "might as well have been without", so you don't know for sure which leaves a huge hole in this experiment because it's already based off assumptions that aren't proven yet.

i feel like you'd want to find significance between normal non-strobing and strobing environments before you measure the differences between lights strobing at different rhythms. How can they verify that randomized strobes didn't decrease cognitive function instead of rhythms helping?

its like if i wanted to see if a program helped kids to better in school, it would be useless to test between different programs when im not sure how the students were doing before they started it

right?