Distinct neural oscillations predict individual differences in feedback-guided cognitive flexibility.

After decades of prohibition, psychedelics are re‑emerging in Western health and research contexts, with growing activity across both regulated and unregulated settings [, ]. Interest, investment and clinical uptake are outpacing publicly vetted practice standards and safeguards. While many private, community‑based and lineage‑informed settings hold established ethical norms, publicly accessible, research‑informed standards remain in development across training and practice contexts. In some areas, regulatory bodies have begun to clarify expectations for clinical research with psychedelic drugs [], yet consistent standards emerging from public bodies and real‑world practice and training environments remain limited []. This gap is compounded by the multidisciplinary nature of psychedelic‑assisted therapy (PaT). PaT does not sit fully within any single professional domain; rather, it draws on—and is variably shaped by—clinical psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, somatic and relational therapies, neuroscience, ethics, education, spiritual care and community‑based and cultural knowledge systems. As a result, no one field fully PaT training, practice or governance. While this plurality is a strength, it also complicates the development, evaluation and governance of shared competency expectations, accountability and public‑facing standards, particularly in training contexts that sit outside traditional licensure or regulatory frameworks []. Further, PaT involves non‑ordinary states of consciousness that can heighten suggestibility, relational vulnerability and boundary risk, placing increased ethical and relational demands on practitioners and training programmes []. In this context, training and competency frameworks function not only as educational benchmarks but also as public‑facing safeguards that support clinical integrity, accountability and harm prevention as the field continues to scale [].