DentalBoiDMD t1_j6vnqnu wrote

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



DentalBoiDMD OP t1_iwf3ayw wrote

Appreciate the detailed response. Yea, it looks like I'll have to pull the trigger on a bareboner, but it's such a waste because I don't need the case

Can switches get water damaged? considering it's mainly just plastic, spring, and a metal strip?

I almost jumped on nk65 and q2 many times, but I really love how clean and high quality the switches sound in metal cases.


DentalBoiDMD t1_iw6c9oq wrote

do add, alot of mice are genetically clones and have certain immune dysfunctions that make it easier to induce diseases/conditions in mice.

that's how it was for our lab. im sure there are many ways to do it