Influence of Binaural Beats Stimulation of Gamma Frequency over Memory Performance and EEG Spectral Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similar to short-term memory, working memory cannot hold information for a long period of time. Studies have shown that binaural beats (BB) can stimulate the brain through sound, affecting working memory function. Although the literature is not conclusive regarding the effects of BB stimulation (stim) on memory, some studies have shown that gamma-BB stim (40 Hz) can increase attentional focusing and improve visual working memory. To better understand the relationship between BB stim and memory, we collected electroencephalographic data (EEG) from 30 subjects in 3 phases-a baseline, with gamma-BB stim, and control stim-in a rest state, with eyes closed, and while performing memory tasks. Both EEG data and memory task performance were analyzed. The results showed no significant changes in the memory task performance or the EEG data when comparing experimental and control conditions. We concluded that brain entrainment was not achieved with our parameters of gamma-BB stimulation when analyzing EEG power spectral density (PSD) and memory task performance. Hence, we suggest that other aspects of EEG data, such as connectivity and correlations with task performance, should also be analyzed for future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".