>>1101126Why are you digging your hole deeper? Go read the supplement you ignored instead of wasting time on misrepresenting two brief sentences of recording adverse effects as a "protracted ethics statement".
It's basically a form of psychotherapy. The basic approach is detailed (using video, analyzing the clips with the parents and reflecting on social interaction and bonding), the plans and foci for the individual sessions are broken down in the supplement - what more do you want? Minutes of every session?
"We used a VIPP tailored to ASD" is equivalent to "We used cognitive behavioral therapy tailored towards phobias" - someone who has never heard of it has no fucking clue what that means, but a trained professional gets a good idea of what happened and how to replicate it. The description is exactly sufficient for a paper like this. Nothing more and nothing less.
>siggraph>softwareMaybe the human mind is unlike an image-processing algorithm?
The better analogy would be the paper saying "Compared to the un-edited control images we manually manipulated these images using the GIMP clone-tool to minimize artifacts. A breakdown of the clone-tool functionality is the supplement." and you saying "This sounds like an advertisement for GIMP and can't be replicated! It doesn't even tell you what brush-strokes were done!"
