Science & Honesty

What we know, what we don't, and what we are testing.

We use a simple framework: each claim about our programs is tagged with its actual evidence level. We'd rather you trust us on three things than doubt us on ten.

Explore the programs

What support means

  • We separate established findings from exploratory hypotheses.
  • Literature informs design; direct program-level results are not overstated.
  • Exploratory outcomes are labeled clearly and tracked toward formal validation.
  • Null findings and uncertainty are expected to be reported.

Evidence level definitions

Supported

General psychoacoustic literature supports the mechanism in related contexts. It does not automatically validate every session format.

Promising

Pilot observations and related mechanistic work suggest potential in defined listening contexts.

Exploratory

Theory and adjacent evidence suggest potential, with direct outcomes still under study.

In development

Outcome pathways are defined but formal program-level claims are not yet established.

Current evidence pages

Supported

Stress Regulation

Short-form calming support for regulated transitions.

Open page
Promising

Meditation Support

Paced reflective listening support with adjunctive timing structure.

Open page
Supported for subjective benefit

Sleep Preparation

Pre-sleep wind-down support and relaxation framing.

Open page
Promising

Guided Pacing

Breathing and behavioral sequencing with temporal cues.

Open page
Exploratory

Attention & Focus

Task-based listening support under formal clinical planning.

Open page
Supported

Comfort During Care

Care setting comfort support and preference-aware delivery.

Open page
In development

Research & Outcomes

Proposed studies and outcome reporting standards.

Open page

Our relationship to the literature

We cite published research on psychoacoustic mechanisms to explain why our design takes this form. That literature does not automatically prove this specific protocol for every population. Program-specific testing is the next layer of evidence.

  • G. Thut, P. G. Schyns, and J. Gross, “Entrainment of Perceptually Relevant Brain Oscillations by Non-Invasive Rhythmic Stimulation of the Human Brain,” Frontiers in Psychology 2 (2011), Article 170. DOI, Frontiers, PubMed, PMC
  • M. V. Thoma, R. La Marca, R. Brönnimann, L. Finkel, U. Ehlert, and U. M. Nater, “The Effect of Music on the Human Stress Response,” PLOS ONE 8(8) (2013), e70156. DOI, PLOS ONE, PubMed, PMC
  • M. Chaieb, E. C. Wilpert, T. P. Reber, and J. Fell, “Auditory Beat Stimulation and its Effects on Cognition and Mood States,” Frontiers in Psychiatry 6 (2015), Article 70. DOI, Frontiers, PubMed, PMC
  • M. Garcia-Argibay, M. A. Santed, and J. M. Reales, “Efficacy of binaural auditory beats in cognition, anxiety, and pain perception: a meta-analysis,” Psychological Research 83(2) (2019), 357–372. DOI, Springer, PubMed, PMC