BIOLOGY 103
FALL, 2000
LAB 7
|
| BIOLOGY 103 | |
Katie Kennedy
What I wanted to do was test whether or not my data would differ depending on my own distance from the monitor. Is there a kind of distance delay in our thinking? Light travels incredibly fast but would a foot further from the monitor make a difference?
For this experiment I took my control data approximately 1 and 1/2 feet from the monitor and took my experimental data at just over three feet from the monitor. This experiment has limitations because perhaps the distance of slightly more than 1 and 1/2 feet is not large enough to measure any kind of difference in reaction times, but if I was to get too much further not only would I not be able to reach the mouse, but I would not be able to see the words on the screen and my data would be wrong as I took more time to decipher what the letters were rather than what the actual instructions said.
My data are as follows
Control
Act Times (in milliseconds): 366, 393, 388, 472, 390, 370, 378, 389, 388, 388
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 438, 373, 376, 457, 475, 393, 468, 536, 519, 455
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 640, 479, 471, 469, 564, 547, 543, 777, 549, 552
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 621, 481, 563, 616, 481, 469, 486, 901, 620, 497
Act Time: 392 ± 28 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 449 ± 53 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 559 ± 88 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 573 ± 125 milliseconds
Time to Act: 392 ± 28 milliseconds
Time to Think: 57 ± 60 milliseconds
Time to Read: 110 ± 103 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 14 ± 153 milliseconds
Experiment
Act Times (in milliseconds): 376, 382, 391, 387, 390, 470, 387, 374, 932, 439
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 382, 388, 540, 370, 448, 464, 703, 373, 522, 457
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 528, 523, 531, 598, 610, 542, 595, 533, 547, 547
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 693, 467, 618, 482, 477, 628, 620, 620, 760, 770
Act Time: 452 ± 163 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 464 ± 99 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 555 ± 31 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 613 ± 105 milliseconds
Time to Act: 452 ± 163 milliseconds
Time to Think: 12 ± 191 milliseconds
Time to Read: 91 ± 104 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 58 ± 110 milliseconds
Except for the Read, Think, Act Time, I was consistently faster when I was closer to the computer, and the time that did not correlate with this was only 5milliseconds faster than the control time.
Caroline Dyar and Sujatha Sebastian
Hypothesis:
We believed that the consumption of caffeine (in the form of coffee) would lower reaction time.
Observations:
After conducting the same experiment as we did last week, but with the consumption of caffeine as the only change, we saw that in every case but one, the time it took us to react decreased. The differences in reaction times varied for each category. For example the difference in act time for Sujatha was 50 milliseconds less than last week's and the difference in act time for Caroline was 35. For the second category of Think and Act Time, Sujatha's time went up by 38 milliseconds but Caroline's time went down by 92 milliseconds. In the third category of Read, Think, and Act Time, Sujatha went down by 53 milliseconds and Caroline went down by 54 milliseconds. (It is interesting to note the closeness in times.) In the fourth category of Read, Think-Negate, and Act Time, Sujatha went down by 145 milliseconds and Caroline went down by 32 milliseconds. All of the caffeine times were significantly lower than the non-caffeine times collected in last week's experiment.
Conclusion:
When looking at the results it is important to note outside factors before arriving at a conclusion. Because the experiments were run a week apart from each other, we could have been more alert one lab day as opposed to another lab day. We should also take into consideration the fact that we might have been "conditioned" into reacting more quickly. This week we knew what we were going to test beforehand and knew how the tests were run. (We already knew how to run the test and did not have to take as much time warming up.)
Overall, caffeine consumption did affect the results and decreased reaction time. It would be interesting to further explore the effects of caffeine on the brain.
P>Sujatha's Times Without Caffeine P>Act Time: 399 ± 35 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 429 ± 84 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 745 ± 154 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 754 ± 178 milliseconds
Time to Act: 399 ± 35 milliseconds
Time to Think: 30 ± 91 milliseconds
Time to Read: 316 ± 176 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 9 ± 236 milliseconds
Sujatha's Caffeine Times
Act Time: 351 ± 53 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 437 ± 58 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 692 ± 230 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 609 ± 81 milliseconds
Time to Act: 351 ± 53 milliseconds
Time to Think: 86 ± 79 milliseconds
Time to Read: 255 ± 38 milliseconds
Time to Negate: -83 ± 244 milliseconds
Caroline's Times Without Caffeine
Act Time: 432 ± 46 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 529 ± 71 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 577 ± 54 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 582 ± 92 milliseconds
Time to Act: 432 ± 46 milliseconds
Time to Think: 97 ± 85 milliseconds
Time to Read: 48 ± 90 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 5 ± 107 milliseconds
Caroline's Caffeine Times
Act Time: 397 ± 26 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 437 ± 31 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 523 ± 72 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 550 ± 56 milliseconds
Time to Act: 397 ± 26 milliseconds
Time to Think: 40 ± 41 milliseconds
Time to Read: 86 ± 79 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 27 ± 92 milliseconds
Adria Robbin and Elizabeth Paluska
Hypothesis:
Response and reaction time is faster in the dominant hand.
(Example: A person who is right-handed will have faster reaction times with her right hand than her left hand.)
Procedure:
In our experiment, we will test the reaction times in both the left and right hands. There are two subjects in this experiment, both are right-handed. We use the computer program that measures reaction times for four different tasks: act; think, act; read, think, act and read, negate, think, act. There will be ten trails for each task. The control group will be the results from the dominant hand. Then we will data from the non-dominant hand using the same criteria: 10 trails of each procedure.
Observations:
Subject #1 Control Data (Dominant Hand):
Case 1 -ACT
Average: 289 milliseconds SD:32
Case 2- THINK ACT
Average: 378 milliseconds SD:49
Case 3- READ THINK ACT
Average: 547 milliseconds SD: 101
Case 4 - READ THINK-NEGATE ACT
Average: 509 milliseconds SD: 119
Subject #1 Non-Dominant Hand
Case 1 -ACT
Average: 350 milliseconds SD: 62
Case 2- THINK ACT
Average: 393 milliseconds SD: 57
Case 3- READ THINK ACT
Average: 524 milliseconds SD: 52
Case 4 - READ THINK-NEGATE ACT
Average: 513 milliseconds SD: 150
Subject #2 Control Data (Dominant Hand):
Case 1 -ACT
Average: 342 milliseconds SD: 81
Case 2- THINK ACT
Average: 358 milliseconds SD: 52
Case 3- READ THINK ACT
Average: 672 milliseconds SD: 131
Case 4 - READ THINK-NEGATE ACT
Average: 727 milliseconds SD: 269
Subject #2 Non-Dominant Hand:
Case 1 -ACT
Average: 337 milliseconds SD: 47
Case 2- THINK ACT
Average: 403 milliseconds SD: 70
Case 3- READ THINK ACT
Average: 576 milliseconds SD: 64
Case 4 - READ THINK-NEGATE ACT
Average: 681 milliseconds SD: 197
Dicussion:
Our results do not support the hyppthesis. In some trials times were slower for the left hand, but in other trials times were slower for the right hand. Therefore, based on our observations we cannot conclude that there is a corollation between dominant or non-dominant hand use and reaction time.
Jill McCain, Alexis Hilts, and Susy Jones
Our hypotheses is that using our left hand to do response experiments will increase the response time. Our method was to do one round of pre-control tests on the right hand to acquaint our selves with the system. We then did a control test on the right hand and an experiment test on the left hand.
Our results were as follows:
Control right hand:
Act: 465 +/-81, 410 +/-36, 417 +/-26
Think: 89 +/-108, 72 +/-85, 226 +/-126
Read: 282 +/-122, 262 +/-144, 49 +/-144
Negate: 68+/-124, 3 +/-188, 34 +/-110
Left Hand:
Act: 548 +/-73, 427 +/-86, 525 +/-104
Think: 128 +/-103, 99 +/-96, 147 +/-157
Read: 168 +/-132, 189 +/-166, 59 +/-224
Negate: 87+/-223, 51 +/-232, 96 +/-267
The time to act went up for all three participants when using their left hands, consistent with out hypotheses. There were other times that were affected by using our left hands, but none of the numbers went up consistently in all three participant's times. It is hard to tell from our results how much thinking is affected by motor movements. It does point to the fact that it might affect them, though. Further testing would allow us to evaluate this question more accurately.
Jeanne Braha and Srabonti Ali
Hypothesis: The data (from the tests) is affected by how you alter your situation or the circumstances in which you take the tests. The more distracted we were, the longer it would take for us to think, react, negate and read.
Method: We used the data from last week as a control. We then took the tests again and distracted each other by talking to each other and reading out loud to each other.
Results/Observations:
Jeanne:
Last week:
Act Time: 403 ± 42 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 531 ± 54 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 875 ± 149 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 1055 ± 267 milliseconds
This week:
Act Time: 420 ± 130 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 479 ± 55 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 749 ± 106 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 845 ± 55 milliseconds
Srabonti:
Last week:
Act time: 317 ± 6 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 434 ± 131 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 588 ± 78 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 575 ± 122 milliseconds
This week:
Act Time: 542 ± 143 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 539 ± 63 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 711 ± 124 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 867 ± 334 milliseconds
Conclusion: In Jeanne's case it took her less time when she was distracted to react, think, negate and read. However, her standard deviation was greater this week than it was last week, which is a function of the range of distraction levels. Although this was not recorded in the data, because she was being distracted, Jeanne made more errors.
In Srabonti's case, it took her longer to react, think, negate and read than it did for her last week, which supported our hypothesis. Most of her standard deviations were greater as well. However, because she was trying to concentrate on the tests, she made less errors but took more time.
We came to the conclusion that distraction is a relative term. And different degrees of distraction cause different reactions and reaction times. For example sometimes we asked each other questions instead of just reading out to each other. This caused us both to take longer to do the tasks.
If we were to do the experiment again we would try to control the distraction level by writing up a list of questions that we would ask while the other was taking the test.
Mary Rochelle and Katie Gallagher
Question: How do caffeine, sugar, and cigarettes (stimulants) affect reaction time?
Methods:
Phase 1: Control: We both took the reaction time test without having had any pop
or cigarettes.
Phase 2: Experiment: Mary drank about 16 oz of Dr. Pepper (caffeinated, sugar) and smoked two cigarettes. Katie drank about 16 oz of ginger ale (not caffeinated, sugar) and smoked two cigarettes. This took approximately 30 minutes. We each then took the test again.
Phase 3: Results:
Mary's time to act stayed essentially the same: 428 +/- 53 milliseconds before; 468
+/- 79 milliseconds after. The time to think appeared to drop: 101 +/- 163 ms
before; 21 +/- 101 ms after. The time to read also stayed about the same: 129 +/-
187 ms before; 112 +/- 124 ms after. The time to negate seemed to drop: 57 +/-
198 ms before; 25 +/- 164 ms after.
Katie's time to act stayed essentially the same: 325 +/- 70 milliseconds before; 338 +/- 25 ms after. The time to think stayed about the same: 106 +/- ms before; 98+/-75 ms after. The time to read dropped by almost half: 104+/-58 ms before; 54 +/- 90 ms after. The time to negate dropped sufficiently as well: 203+/- 216 ms before; 84 +/- 89 ms after.
Conclusions: It seems that caffeine does not have any more effect on reaction time than sugar, but sugar definitely affects reaction time in variance. However, we feel that the effect of boredom itself should be taken into account [the test itself is boring] and our energy level in general seemed to decrease over the course of the experiment, which seemed to benefit our reaction times.
Trudell Smith and Jenny Wilson
Hypothesis: Reaction times to the various cases will improve in the second trials for both subjects. Trudell--exercise will improve performance. Jenny--practice will in fact not improve her performance, as she suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder.
Experiment: Trudell completed 10 trials of cases 1 through 4 to establish control group, and then performed mild exercises to stimulate brain and increase alertness before performing second round of trials.
Jenny used her results from last week as her control group, and then performed her second round following "practice"--15 minutes per day, 5 days.
Results:
Trudell: Control Act: 458+/-54 Time to Act: 458+/-54
Thnk,Act: 538+/-63 Time to Think: 80+/-83
Read, Think, Act: 873+/-71 Time to Read: 335+/-95
Negate: 1011+/-333 Time to Negate: 138+/-341
Exercise Act: 498+/-27 Time to Act: 498+/-27
Think,Act: 602+/-83` Time to Think: 104+/-88
Read, Think, Act: 821+/-871 Time to Read: 219+/-191
Negate: 975+/-155 Time to Negate: 154+/-231
Jenny: Control Act: 417+/-85 Time to Act: 417+/-85
Think,Act: 623+/-148 Time to Think: 206+/-
Read, Think, Act: 924+/-256 Time to Read: 301+/-
Negate: 2008+/-2140 Time to Negate: 1084+/-
Practice Act: 462+/-112 Time to Act: 462+/-112
Think,Act: 683+/-89 Time to Think: 221+/-144
Read, Think, Act: 282+/-121 Time to Read: 99+/-151
Negate: 809+/-383 Time to Negate: 27+/-402
Conclusions--Trudell:
Time to Act did not improve, however her deviations did decrease, suggesting that her level of consistency improved.
Time to Think did not improve, and deviations were essentially the same.
Time to Read improved significantly, though her deviations increased significantly as well. Thus, one may conclude that moderate exercise had a significant effect on her reading concentration level.
Time to Negate did not improve, though her deviations decreased significantly.
Based on the above results, moderate exercise did not have a significant effect on her performance, though it is evident that her response times did not improve. The exception is her reading time, which may have improved as a result of familiarity with the material.
Conclusions--Jenny:
Time to Act did not improve with practice, and her deviations increased significantly.
Time to Think did not improve, but the difference is not significant.
Time to Read improved significantly, suggesting that either practice or subject familiarity may have played a major role.
Time to Negate improved by a significant margin, however there is a source of error--an outlier--in the control group for that case. Specifically, a response time of 12,000 ms was recorded in the control as a result of inattention. Thus, her theory about the effect of her ADD is proven indirectly.
Based on the above results, practice did not have a significant effect on her performance. However it is difficult to either prove or disprove her hypothesis, because inattention was a factor in both trials. Therefore, the only definitive conclusion can be drawn following an experiment that incorporates a trial involving administration of anti-ADD medication (i.e. Ritalin).
Clare Lindner and Sarah Naimzadeh
Introduction: This lab builds upon the previous lab where we measured the time it takes to think. Using that data as a control, we introduced other variables, namely, caffeine and music. Clare chose caffeine because she thought that it helped her to reacted more quickly. Sarah chose music because she uses it to keep her awake while writing papers at two or three am and wondered if it would have a positive or negative impact on her rate of though and reaction.
Hypothesis: Clare and Sarah thought that the caffeine would have a positive effect on her reaction times. We also thought that the music would have a negative effect on Sarah's reaction times.
Method:
-Clare had four cups of coffee in the span of approximately three hours before
doing the lab again.
-Sarah listened to N Sync while doing the lab.
As we stated, this lab builds upon the previous lab as it uses the same shockwave program.
Results:
Clare
|
Control |
Caffeine |
|
|
Act |
434 ± 68 milliseconds |
493 ± 71 milliseconds |
|
Think |
191 ± 146 milliseconds |
46 ± 95 milliseconds |
|
Read |
34 ± 133 milliseconds |
245 ± 124 milliseconds |
|
Negate |
444 ± 176 milliseconds |
345 ± 218 milliseconds |
Sarah
|
Control |
Music |
|
|
Act |
446 ± 88 milliseconds |
428 ± 32 milliseconds |
|
Think |
17 ± 107 milliseconds |
62 ± 79 milliseconds |
|
Read |
225 ± 203 milliseconds |
135 ± 145 milliseconds |
|
Negate |
-11 ± 243 milliseconds |
-79 ± 147 milliseconds |
The first number on the chart, in the row, "act," represents the average amount of time it took to react to the scenario (clicking when the black square appeared). The numbers in the "think" row, represent the average time it took to identify the black square versus the white square minus the average "act" time. Similarly, the "read" numbers represent the reaction times for the third scenario minus the average "think" times. The "negate" time numbers represent the average "negate" times minus the average "read" times.
Discussion of Results:
Clare thinks that her hypothesis was correct because for the most part her time improved as a result of the high caffeine intake.
Sarah was surprised that her times improved while listening to music.
We realize that this does not mean that all people should drink four cups of coffee or listen to N Sync. These are personalized results.
Joseph Santini and Robin Reineke
Reaction times of individual after undergoing two types of mental stimulus
|
Robin’s Times |
Control |
Passive Mental |
Active Mental |
|
Act Time |
469+/- 87 |
478+/-78 |
428+/-47 |
|
Think, Act |
518+/-128 |
533+/-101 |
538+/-66 |
|
Read, Think, Act |
722+/-97 |
769+/-148 |
669+/-124 |
|
Read, Think-Negate, Act |
800+/-102 |
907+/-171 |
1112+/-854 |
|
Joe’s Times |
Control |
Passive Mental |
Active Mental |
|
Act Time |
349+/-87 |
362+/-37 |
322+/-66 |
|
Think, Act |
503+/-50 |
451+/-24 |
441+/-53 |
|
Read, Think, Act |
612+/-82 |
604+/-120 |
559+/-80 |
|
Read, Think-Negate, Act |
685+/-111 |
600+/-61 |
824+/-204 |
The Original Question:
Do reaction and think times vary after periods of different kinds of activity, both passive mental activity (reading) and active mental activity (writing). We first recorded the control, then read vigorously for 10 minutes, and performed the task again. Then we wrote non-stop for 10 minutes and performed the task once again. We wanted to compare not only the reaction times themselves, but also the variation between them.
Points to ponder: Was Joe more interested in his reading than Robin? Why did both times go down after the active mental activity? Could it be that the mind was already active, so the brain was "warmed up" when the task was performed? Why was it that both Robin and Joe’s times on the control were faster than the times after the passive mental activity? Perhaps the passive mental activity actually slows the brain down!!!
Jessica Hayes-Conroy and Allison Hayes-Conroy
In this lab, we wanted to find out whether or not music affects the time it takes us to act, think, read, and negate. More specifically we wanted to know whether the "harshness" of the music has anything to do with the recorded times. (We defined harshness of music by the following qualities: loudness, amount of screaming, amount to which the lyrics were disturbing, amount to which the instruments created sharp noise, and tempo. The more these qualities were true, the harsher we considered the music to be.) We hypothesized that as the harshness increased, the recorded rates would increase as well.
In order to test this hypothesis, we first took a control set of rates using the program "Time to Think." These were our rates when listening to no music. We then used the same program while listening to tracks 8 and 9 of Rockwell Church’s Superego album. We defined this type of music as low in harshness. We then used the program for a third time, this time while listening to tracks 1 and 5 of Red Hot Chili Pepper’s album, Californication. We defined this type of music as high in harshness.
Our results were as follows:
|
Time to Act |
Time to Think |
Time to Read |
Time to Negate |
|
|
Jess Control |
315 |
67 |
134 |
31 |
|
Al Control |
303 |
53 |
162 |
116 |
|
Jess Rockwell |
323 |
66 |
162 |
-30 |
|
Al Rockwell |
362 |
21 |
211 |
-5 |
|
Jess Red Hot Chili |
345 |
62 |
160 |
-64 |
|
Al Red Hot Chili |
328 |
111 |
181 |
8 |
Our results did not support the hypothesis we began with. Assuming that the control shows a zero level of harshness, the only data that supports the hypothesis is Jess’s time to act, which increased with harshness. All of the other data either went down with harshness or went up and then down, clearly not what we had expected from the hypothesis.
There are several possible reasons why the results did not support our hypothesis. One factor could be the soothing quality of the music low in harshness, which could have either slowed our rates down by slowing down our overall reaction times or increased them by making us more relaxed and thus more able to concentrate. In addition, the harshness could have made our rates go up by forcing us to concentrate harder.
There are also a number of possible errors that we should take into account. For example, we noticed that the amount of times that we made mistakes, forcing our results to be erased, increased with the harshness level. In addition, our standard deviation within the ten trials that we recorded for each part of the experiment increased with harshness as well. This could mean that the harshness is indeed more distracting, since it caused us to be less consistent. The results could have been effected by the amount of times we had to do the experiment after making mistakes, and by the inconsistency in our concentration.
In future labs, it might be interesting to take more trials, using more music of varying levels of harshness. In addition, it would be better if the experiment could some how take the deviation and mistakes into account, so that they would no longer be a variable.
Meghan McCabe and Nimia Barrera
Question: Does brain stimulation affect reaction time?
Hypothesis: We predict that brain stimulation will reduce reaction time (make reaction quicker).
Observations: First we did the control experiment. This involved four separate experiments that we each did ten times. First, we would click a button when a black box appears. The computer then records the reaction time. Second, we push the button only when a black box appears above it. The computer then records reaction time. Third, we follow the directions above the box to measure read, think, and react time. Fourth, we had to do the opposite of what the statement said to measure read, think-negate, and act time. Below are our observations:
Control Experiment
Nimia
Act Time: 426 ± 97 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 525 ± 69 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 673 ± 80 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 722 ± 190 milliseconds
Time to Act: 426 ± 97 milliseconds
Time to Think: 99 ± 120 milliseconds
Time to Read: 148 ± 106 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 49 ± 207 milliseconds
Meghan
Act Time: 525 ± 100 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 650 ± 158 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 765 ± 82 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 875 ± 239 milliseconds
Time to Act: 525 ± 100 milliseconds
Time to Think: 125 ± 187 milliseconds
Time to Read: 115 ± 179 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 110 ± 253 milliseconds
After Collecting this data we tested how brain stimulation affects reaction time by reading a newspaper article on the presidential election. We then repeated the procedure from above. Below are our observations:
After Reading Newspaper
Nimia
Act Time: 412 ± 71 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 417 ± 61 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 577 ± 64 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 704 ± 89 milliseconds
Time to Act: 412 ± 71 milliseconds
Time to Think: 5 ± 94 milliseconds
Time to Read: 160 ± 89 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 127 ± 110 milliseconds
Meghan
Act Time: 487 ± 85 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 549 ± 91 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 730 ± 84 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 785 ± 119 milliseconds
Time to Act: 487 ± 85 milliseconds
Time to Think: 62 ± 125 milliseconds
Time to Read: 181 ± 124 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 55 ± 146 milliseconds
Conclusions: Our data supports our hypothesis. Both of our reaction times improved (were faster) after reading the newspaper and stimulating our minds. This suggests that intellectual stimulation of the mind can quicken reaction time to trivial things. However, the improvement of our scores could also be due to more practice.
Naomi Lim, Leila Ghazhnavi, and Julie Kwon
Naomi:
Methods: For my experiment, I decided to see what kind of results I would get if I
did the experiment from last week in reverse. So, I started with "Read, Negate, Think, Act" and ended with "Act".
My hypothesis was that the results for the second experiment starting with the harder test would be better, based on the fact that it would go from "difficult" to "easy" (or supposedly).
Observations:
Experiment 1
Act Times (in milliseconds): 497, 420, 417, 420, 417, 416, 415, 580, 418, 419
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 92, 495, 413, 495, 418, 498, 492, 500, 497, 580
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 607, 592, 672, 753, 672, 508, 596, 512, 511, 672
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 689, 509, 507, 682, 688, 611, 689, 773, 512, 609
Act Time: 441 ± 52 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 448 ± 127 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 609 ± 79 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 626 ± 89 milliseconds
Time to Act: 441 ± 52 milliseconds
Time to Think: 7 ± 138 milliseconds
Time to Read: 161 ± 150 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 17 ± 120 milliseconds
Experiment 2
Act Times (in milliseconds): 491, 491, 413, 493, 491, 493, 411, 408, 414, 492
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 411, 417, 491, 571, 489, 413, 494, 410, 492, 493
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 592, 582, 558, 728, 661, 677, 507, 688, 609, 584
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 650, 602, 599, 682, 513, 639, 582, 674, 601, 669
Act Time: 459 ± 40 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 468 ± 51 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 618 ± 65 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 621 ± 50 milliseconds
Time to Act: 459 ± 40 milliseconds
Time to Think: 9 ± 65 milliseconds
Time to Read: 150 ± 83 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 3 ± 83 milliseconds
Results
For Read, Think-Negate, Act, my time for the second test was quicker than for the first test. (compare 621/ 50 to 626/89. While the results weren't so different, the range was considerably more for the first test.
For Read, Think, Act, my time for my first test quicker than that for my second test. (compare 609/79 (first) to 618/65 (2nd)).
For Think, Act, my time for my first test was significantly quicker than that for the second test (compare 448/127 to 468/51) There is a great disparity on the range for these two tests as well.
Lastly, for Act, my time for the first test was quicker than for the second test (441/52 to 459/40).
Leila:
For my change in experiment I decided to do all the tests sleep deprived. So last night I only got 4 and a half-hours of sleep. I predicted that the speed of my responses would decrease. Without even analyzing the data I could tell that my response times were slower. I was sluggish to respond and more sluggish to even notice what was going on.
I obtained the following results:
Act Times (in milliseconds): 409, 573, 409, 417, 657, 419, 410, 413, 415, 413
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 739, 417, 656, 490, 656, 783, 412, 572, 620, 655
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 675, 1092, 1092, 994, 1009, 681, 911, 830, 590, 954
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 924, 846, 914, 926, 683, 766, 912, 850, 765, 1010
Act Time: 453 ± 83 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 600 ± 121 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 882 ± 172 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 859 ± 93 milliseconds
Time to Act: 453 ± 83 milliseconds
Time to Think: 147 ± 147 milliseconds
Time to Read: 282 ± 211 milliseconds
Time to Negate: -23 ± 196 milliseconds
I can not solidly say that I was slower because I do not have the results from last class when I had 8 hours sleep but I would be extremely surprised to find that I was the same or faster. If my times are slower, what this means is that a lack of sleep affects the brain. The brain is not independent of the sleep cycle and thus when a lack of sleep occurs it will suffer. Reaction times go up as well as think times, read, and negate times. The only blip was that it took me less time to negate read think then to think and read. This is probably caused by the same thing as last week. The fact that there are only two or three options for Do not click and many more options 8-9 for do click. It's easy to train your brain to zero in on these few key words and ignore the rest. But otherwise the results support my hypothesis. Less sleep==less brain power.
Jakki Rowlett
Hypothesis : It takes time to think.
In order to test this hypothesis we timed our reactions to the following:
1) Act (simple reaction)
2) Think, Act (distinguishing between two colors, then reacting)
3) Read, Think, Act (read the instructions and react, act)
4) Read, Think, Negate (read instructions, do the opposite)
Observations of both our team data and overall class data bears out the hypothesis that the thinking does take time. Furthermore, in general the more complex the thought process required the more time it takes. However, one anamalous finding was that some people actually reacted more quickly in negation than in straightforward read/react. Several theories about why this may have occurred were offered
1) Sampling is affected by the "penalty" factor.
2) By focusing on the words "do not" and "don't" aids in reaction.
3) Possibly people are just quicker to negate
4) The amount of practice one has had by that point.
Jakki Control Experiment (with adequate sleep)
Act Times (in milliseconds): 353, 576, 428, 364, 362, 363, 421, 429, 356, 422
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 564, 420, 418, 562, 530, 420, 419, 480, 661, 361
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 513, 657, 659, 435, 653, 586, 695, 516, 650, 593
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 667, 901, 724, 935, 532, 792, 1278, 734, 749, 578
Act Time: 407 ± 65 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 483 ± 89 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 595 ± 80 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 789 ± 202 milliseconds
Time to Act: 407 ± 65 milliseconds
Time to Think: 76 ± 111 milliseconds
Time to Read: 112 ± 120 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 194 ± 218 milliseconds
Hypotheseis: Lack of sleep should adversely affect reaction time as well as slow down the thought processes.
Jakki's Reaction Times (No sleep)
Act Times (in milliseconds): 411, 411, 409, 413, 412, 411, 408, 411, 413, 407
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 409, 408, 572, 651, 573, 488, 409, 407, 574, 488
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 548, 776, 637, 682, 864, 618, 567, 1320, 764, 623
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 1150, 955, 665, 876, 1086, 876, 879, 551, 862, 552
Act Time: 410 ± 2 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 497 ± 86 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 739 ± 216 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 845 ± 193 milliseconds
Time to Act: 410 ± 2 milliseconds
Time to Think: 87 ± 87 milliseconds
Time to Read: 242 ± 233 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 106 ± 290 milliseconds
Conclusion: Reaction time is more consistent (less variation) and not markedly slower with lack of sleep. Because I was more alert when well rested, I was more susceptible to distractions. Think/Act time, relatively constant in time and variation. Reading and negating times were
Hypothesis: Reaction time, but not thought process, should be slower when one is forced to use the non-dominant hand.
Jakki Left handed experiment
Act Times (in milliseconds): 417, 408, 653, 420, 406, 401, 417, 411, 399, 452
Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 482, 487, 480, 612, 410, 474, 414, 478, 415, 477
Read, Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 715, 904, 649, 707, 637, 713, 726, 853, 644, 653
Read, Negate-Think, Act Times (in milliseconds): 911, 583, 641, 568, 910, 1249, 644, 539, 770, 684
Act Time: 438 ± 73 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 472 ± 56 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 720 ± 87 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 749 ± 209 milliseconds
Time to Act: 438 ± 73 milliseconds
Time to Think: 34 ± 93 milliseconds
Time to Read: 248 ± 104 milliseconds
Time to Negate: 29 ± 227 milliseconds
Jabeen Obaray
In this experiment, I decided to look at the effect of listening to music while performing the Time to Think task.
Hypothesis: Listening to music while performing the tasks will decrease response time.
Methods: First, I took control data. Then for the experimental section, I put my walkman on and listened to music (in particular, it was a variety of Hindi music from within the last fifty years, which I know the words to so I also found myself "singing" the songs to myself). I listened to the music while I was performing the different tasks.
Data:
Control data:
* Act Time: 285 ± 32 milliseconds
* Think, Act Time: 359 ± 31 milliseconds
* Read, Think, Act Time: 508 ± 51 milliseconds
* Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 568 ± 142 milliseconds
Experimental data:
* Act Time: 289 ± 33 milliseconds
* Think, Act Time: 345 ± 48 milliseconds
* Read, Think, Act Time: 474 ± 36 milliseconds
* Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 527 ± 118 milliseconds
The data I collected suggests that my hypothesis is correct for act time alone (however, the variation was small, as well as the difference in SD), but not for the other tasks. For the other three "think" tasks, my response time decreased by a significant amount, getting higher in amount of difference in ms as increase in "amount of thinking" needed (task 2: difference of 14ms, task 3: 34 ms, task 4: 41 ms). I found that the standard deviations (variations) for the first two tasks were greater, but for the last two tasks, the SD's were significantly lower.
The results of the data could have been due to various factors such as type of music (slow vs. fast), or familiarity of music, and also the fact that the music I was listening to was in a different language from the tasks which were in English. I also found that the errors I made were less in the experimental section vs. the control, which may have been due to the fact that it was the second time I was doing it (practice).
Promise Partner
Bio 103
Time to Think: With and Without Food
Hypothesis: It will take less time to think after eating than on an empty stomach.
Methods: I arrived at lab on an empty stomach, having eaten a bagel and banana 2.5 hours earlier but nothing since. I then performed the tasks of "Time to Think" as my 'without food' data and went to the dining hall for lunch. There I had a bowl of rice, carrots and celery with hummus, a cookie with ice cream, two cups of water, and a cup of tea. I returned to lab and once again performed the "Time to Think" tasks to collect my 'with food' data.
Results:
Without Food
Act Time: 353 ± 31 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 385 ± 64 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 595 ± 85 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 760 ± 216 milliseconds
With Food
Act Time: 354 ± 32 milliseconds
Think, Act Time: 425 ± 70 milliseconds
Read, Think, Act Time: 570 ± 129 milliseconds
Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: 664 ± 155 milliseconds
Conclusion: My times decreased for the final two tasks, those involving reading and negating, with food. Interestingly my times for the first two tasks, those of involving simply thinking and acting, increased with food. Thus food has more affect on thinking time when the tasks are more difficult. I need to eat to better perform more difficult tasks, like writing papers, but for simpler tasks the factor of food does not matter as much.