
The brain rhythms that detach us from reality - headalgorithm
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02505-z
======
Pick-A-Hill2019
The research sounds interesting but ....

A) Can't find any sources to the original research paper (even DOI (ugh!)
can't find it via
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2731-9](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2731-9)).
Google Scholar? Nope, nothing found with that DOI number. PubPeer? Nothing.
Google? Nope. DDG? Nope.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong here (Occam's razor after all) but if someone
can find a viewable link to the actual research paper it would be much
appreciated!

B) From tfa - "It is premature to draw definitive conclusions from a SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL (emphasis mine). However, Vesuna and colleagues’ work provides
compelling (?????) evidence(????).

This is a topic that interests me for various reasons but I find it so
frustrating when broad claims are made of ground breaking research (as per the
article) but no-one can verify or validate the researchers results because
access to the original paper is restricted.

~~~
treez00
Free access to the paper here: rdcu.be/b7h29

~~~
Pick-A-Hill2019
(Provided link doesn't work) .Thank you for the link but all it did was to
(eventually) resolve back to
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2731-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2731-9)
with an option of paying either $8.99 to "rent"(wtf?) the article or to pay
$199 to subscribe to the Nature Journal.

It also isn't clear that even if paying that $8.99 (just to check a "sample of
one ground breaking study") whether or not that may or may not include the
actual article research paper on which this article was based or not.

But, Sincerely, Thanks for the response (& have an upvote as thanks) but all
it provides is an abstract of the research paper.

~~~
treez00
Strange, it works for me. How about this one?
[https://rdcu.be/b7iew](https://rdcu.be/b7iew)

