The optimal protocol, it turned out, was not the usual, even-spaced one, but an irregular series of two serotonin pulses emitted 10 minutes apart, then one five minutes later, with a final spritz 30 minutes afterward.
This is like reading a newspaper article on computing ten years ago. The author is not a domain expert.
I remember enjoying SciAm so much as a teenager, but right around that time it seemed to decline. It got more political (I say this as someone who agrees with their politics, I just don't want it in my science). It got a lot more pop-oriented. This article is a great example of the latter. They take the utilitarian angle of improving human performance, but it turns out the cited study has little to no relevance to human learning, as the article itself points out, a lot more study is needed. I am not a expert and I am sure this is an important finding, but it seems like SciAm is overselling it to mass audiences.