BIOLOGY 103 FALL, 2002 LAB 8

I think that the two factors which could have affected this experiment the most are the internal/external factors and the practice effects which we discussed during lab time. Everything, from emotion to sleep (whether or not you get enough, which is another issue altogether) to room temperature could affect how quickly our minds are able to tell our fingers to push those buttons. For example, a sleepy person would have a longer reaction time than one with, say, 13 cups of coffee flowing through her veins (that's me!). If the temperature had been warmer in the room (it's freezing in here - can we do something about that?), we might have felt more awake and had better reaction times.

The practice effect was something that I noticed helped out my reaction times a lot. Between cases 2 and 3, my reaction time went up from 0.313 seconds to 0.404 seconds because of the vast differences between the excersizes. However, between cases 3 and 4, my reaction time went down to 0.347 seconds, and I got the feeling that it was because I was now accustomed the the manner of the excersize. I simply had to change my word association (that is, whenever I see the word "Don't", I know to push the button, and when I see the word "Do", I know NOT to push the button). This, by the way, also ties in to the "Strategy Affect" that we discussed in class also.

These were my own personal average times:
Case 1: 0.221 seconds, +/- 0.019 sec.
Case 2: 0.313 seconds, +/- 0.082 sec., average difference 0.092 sec.
Case 3: 0.404 seconds, +/- 0.059 sec., average difference 0.091 sec.
Case 4: 0.347 seconds, +/- 0.066 sec., average difference -0.057 sec.

I'd like to see if men or women have better reaction times. I think that would be pretty interesting to see.

For our experiment we decided to see if a person's reaction time on the Act/Read/Think trial would be affected by repitition. Our hypothesis was that if you did the same trial over and over, your reaction time would be quicker and you would get a lower score. While the score initially was reduced considerably, in subsequent times the scores increased. Although they increased, they stayed lower than the initial score.
Our final reasoning why the scores first lowered and then increased is that the subject did initially become more familiar with the experiment ( lowering their score), then subsequently got bored with the experiment, causing sloppier, slower behavior. This caused the scores to rise again.

Brenda's data for the Act/Read/Think experiment:

trial #1: 526ms
trial #2: 416ms
trial #3: 419ms
trial #4: 445ms
trial #5: 445ms

For our experiment we decided to see if a person's reaction time on the Act/Read/Think trial would be affected by repitition. Our hypothesis was that if you did the same trial over and over, your reaction time would be quicker and you would get a lower score. While the score initially was reduced considerably, in subsequent times the scores increased. Although they increased, they stayed lower than the initial score.
Our final reasoning why the scores first lowered and then increased is that the subject did initially become more familiar with the experiment ( lowering their score), then subsequently got bored with the experiment, causing sloppier, slower behavior. This caused the scores to rise again.

Brenda's data for the Act/Read/Think experiment:

trial #1: 526ms
trial #2: 416ms
trial #3: 419ms
trial #4: 445ms
trial #5: 445ms

observations:
mande before fart noise- 244, 746, -484, -58
during fart noise - 274, 334, 540, 123

After experimenting with the external noise, diana and i found that at first, my reaction times when acting during the noise was affected slightly but after time there was not much of a differance. We conclude that over time I became acclimated to the noise.

Case one (act): 576 +/- 72
Case two (think): 778 +/- 158
Case three (read): 934 +/- 95
Case four (negate): 876 +/- 235

Act time: 576
Think time: 202
Read time: 156
Negate time: -58

For trial two, the two subjects switched places, so that ST watched the screen and CT clicked the mouse. Results for that trial are:

Case one (act): 550 +/- 130
Case two (think): 833 +/- 149
Case three (read): 928 +/- 130
Case four (negate): 1023 +/- 344

Act time: 550
Think time: 283
Read time: 95
Negate time: 95

Conclusions:
The communication time from the person watching the screen to the person clicking the mouse definitely increased the total resulting time. The average additional time seemed fairly consistent between the two trials, thus validating our hypothesis.

Christine Traversi
Sarah Tan

Later on, in my room, I plan to experiment with one of the other factors that I think affected my reation times, the distractions of the classroom. I will experiment with total silence, and lots of noise to see how these factors effect my performance.

I would also lik to experiment with how the body reacts to auditory stimulation, as opposed to the visual stimulation of this particular test, but I have not figured out how to accomplish this task as yet.

Hypothesis: By looking straight ahead, while taking part in this activity,your perepheral vision will not be as accurate as you normal vision.

Observations: When not looking directly at the computer, reaction time was longer becauseyou could not see exactly what was wrtten on the screen. After two ro three times, once you get the idea of what each prompt is telling you, you become more familiar and reaction time increases similiar to what it was originally, but not completely. our numbers increased by 100 millseconds(at least)

Conclusion: Our hypothesis was right.By notlooking straight at the scrren, our perepheral vision would delayreaction time.

CASE 2:
trial 1: 317 +or- 105
trial 2: 279 +or- 37
trial 3: 519 +or- 544

CASE 3:
trial 1: 472 +or- 72
trial 2: 397 +or- 61
trial 3: 462 +or- 106

CASE 4:
trial 1: 451 +or- 114
trial 2: 384 +or- 78
trial 3: 436 +or- 105

Our hypothesis was proven false. In many cases, reaction time increased after practice. This leads us to conclude that many internal factors affect reaction time, including but not limited to: Attention span, level of frustration with the trial, desire to push the button, degree of overall physical exhaustion (esp. in the eyes).

Stephanie's reaction times for Case 1 got lower with practice, but her reaction times for Cases 2- 4 got higher with practice. This seems to indicate that an action can increase with practice but thinking can't.

We wanted to see if women could really multi-task. If outside influences and activity would affect the response time for the Act, Think, Read, Negate experiment. We took the first test with a silent room. In fact, Laura turned around to Maggie while Kyla was taking her test and remarked on how quiet the room was. For the next trial, we decided to tell each other stories while the other person was taking the experiment. Results are as follows:

Trial 1:

Maggie:
Act 277
Think 231
Read 146
Negate 302

Kyla:
Act 279
Think 138
Read 217
Negate 180

Trial 2 (with distraction)

Maggie:
Act 335
Think 141*
Read 280
Negate 192*

*lower times than Trial 1, all other times were higher

Kyla:
Act 330
Think 120*
Read 151*
Negate 194

Conclusions:
Our hypothesis was that the distractions would have an increased effect on response times. However, that was not the case for all of the times. Both act times were significantly higher, however Maggie had lower times for Thinking and Negating while Kyla had lower times for Thinking and Reading. We do not have enough evidence to conclude that distractions make a difference in reaction times for Acting, Thinking, Reading, and Negating.

Data:

HERBIE HANCOCK..............KB................Sf
Act Time...................239................239
Time to Think..............115................78

WHITESNAKE
Act Time..................242.................257
Time to Think.............51...................58

SPOTLIGHT ON GUITAR
Act Time..................251................257
Time to Think.............32..................48

Results:
The data shows that time to think was greatest for both subjects when listening to Herbie Hancock, and smallest when listening to Spotlight on Guitar. The Act Times were consistent across all trials.

Discussion:
This experiment indicates that music can affect one's ability to think quickly. It also is significant that the think times are consistent across two people. This experiment does not answer the question of why different music has particular effects on one's ability to think, suggesting that further study is needed.

Hypothesis: Distractions will slow down reaction time.

Methods: We used the reaction time applet in serendip to measure reaction times for case 1:"act" and case 3:"read, think, act" experiments. During these experiments the person reacting was also engaged in a conversation with her partner who attempted to distract her by asking questions.

Observations:

Chelsea:
Case 1 without distraction: 295 +/- 63
Case 1 with distraction: 734 +/- 369
Case 3 without distraction: 735 +/- 102
Case 3 with distraction: 1157 +/- 249

Roma:
Case 1 without distraction: 274 +/- 30
Case 1 with distraction: 422 +/- 69
Case 3 without distraction: 544 +/- 164
Case 3 with distraction: 661 +/- 200

Conclusions:
There is substantial difference between the data gathered for experiments with and without distraction strongly suggesting that our hypothesis is correct. There also may have been a larger disparity in the data had the initial experiment been carried out in a silent room. Additionally worth noting is that the incidence of error (ie: clicking when told not to which removes the last recorded piece of data) was much higher with distraction. Further experiments might involve other types of multi-tasking.

Adrienne: Act time: 331; Think, act time: 468; Read, think, act: 941; Read, think-negate, act: 1996

For our second experiment, we decided to try talking while performing case 1 and case 4. Our hypothesis was that our reaction times would be slower because of the distraction of carrying on a conversation. Our results were as follows:

Laura: Act time: 374; Read, think-negate, act: 622

Adrienne: Act time: 385; Read, think-negate, act: 1409

Our results were slower except for Adrienne's negating time, which was probably due to the practice factor. Therefore, with that one exception, our hypothesis proved to be true.

We decided to see if our thinking time was inhibited by over-thinking. When some of us were doing the tests we realized that we had to think the command, "Click!" before we actually did. This was above and beyond thinking aboiut whether we had to click or not. To conduct our experiment, we distracted our minds slightly by either singing to ourselves or reciting poetry. In doing this we hoped to make our overall thinking time faster. Our results are as follows:

Margot:

Control: 251+/-14 258+/-14 519+/-29 614+/-65
Experiment: 322+/-18 406+/-70 955+/-857 582+/-54

Michele:

Control: 212+/-28 286+/-46 454+/-15 1421+/-1358
Experiment: 380+/-42 301+/-20 453+/-38 537+/-72

Diana:

Control: 239+/-21 374+/-83 536+/-30 801+/-141
Experiment: 289+/-53 379+/-131 499+/-41 659+/-127

Our results show that for cases 1 and 2 our times are slower, which is understandable. In our last lab we found out that reflex times slow when one is distracted and case one is a reflex test. We also found that we made significantly more mistakes on case 2, although Michele made the same amount of mistakes. For cases 3 and 4 however our times were better, especially in case 4. Our overall deviation was higher for most all cases in the experiment.

We believe that a slight distraction from the test will help most people do better, although this is not true for all people.

Case 1: all three of us increased in reaction time.
Case 2: Rosie increased, Annie and Bobbi decreased.
Case 3: Annie increased, Bobbi and Rosie decreased.
Case 4: all three of us decreased in reaction time.

Our data shows no correlation between reaction time and increased experience or practice. Our hypothesis is therefore incorrect. The results seem random. The practice effect cannot help in this situation because the test is still random and the prompts are unexpected (concentration is still necessary). While we may have gained familiarity with the practice (meaning that our times should have decreased), we were also growing distracted and tired of taking the test--these two factors may have counteracted one another.

The first time that we all used the Thinking Program, we came up with the following results:

CHEL:
233 +- 30 (1)
308 +- 89 (2)
582 +-66 (3)
585 +-66 (4)
233 +- 30 (acting)
75 +- 94 (thinking
274 +- 41 (reading)
6 +-128 (Negating)

MER
269 +-81 (1)
304 +- 69 (2)
369 +- 115 (3)
631 +- 439 (4)
269 +- 81 (acting)
35 +- 107 (thinking)
63 +- 135 (reading)
262 +-464 (negating)

HEI:
224 +-20 (1)
245 +-19 (2)
475 +- 141 (3)
467 +- 144 (4)
224 +- 20 (acting)
21 +- 28 (thinking)
330 +- 143 (reading)
-8 +- 202 (negating)

For our second experiment, we decided to test the impact of practice with the system, and using another set of data for comparison, what the impact of distraction was upon Chelsea.

Our hypothesis is thus, Chelsea will get better with practice and her times will improve. Also, Chelsea will become distracted with the noises, and as a result, her scores will drop.

Results:
Quiet Practice:

Trial 1
Average: 459.9 SD: 84.5 Errors: 3

Trial 2
Average: 412.4 SD: 126.5 Errors: 2

Trial 3
Average: 462.1 SD: 291.5 Errors: 1 (two times high because of double clicks)

Total Average: 444.8 SD: 167.5 Errors: 2

So far, Chelsea improved greatly from her first trial (with the class), and since the last trial was inaccurate, we cannot decisively say that she continued to get better (but she did improve from trial 2 to 3)

Experiment 2
Distracted

Average: 352.1 SD: 122.5 Errors: 2 (both when clapped)

Trial 2
Average: 513.1 SD: 258 Errors: 2

Trial 3
Average: 361.6 SD: 120 Errors: 1 (clapping)

Total Average: 408.93 SD: 166.83 Errors: 2ish

Conclusions: Overall Chelsea concentrated better with distractions, although practice might play a role (we need to do more experiments to decide though). It is important to note that while times seemed to improve, consistency did not, meaning that Chelsea was faster, but also just as inaccurate. We think that noises that are sharp (clapping) have a great impact on concentration than softer or less aggressive noises.

Lawral:
case 2 accuracy - 390 +- 105 100% accuracy
case 2 speed - 355 +- 70 84% accuracy
case 3 accuracy - 581 +- 188 100% accuracy
case 3 speed - 434 +- 81 83% accuracy
case 4 accuracy - 536 +- 87 93% accuracy
case 4 speed - 492 +- 83 86% accuracy

Jodie:
case 2 accuracy - 312 +- 63 100% accuracy
case 2 speed - 274 +- 37 90% accuracy
case 3 accuracy - 366 +- 53 100% accuracy
case 3 speed - 415 +- 160 71% accuracy
case 4 accuracy - 414 +- 128 91% accuracy
case 4 speed - 360 +- 277 72% accuracy

for the most part, our hypothesis was correct. our accuracy was affected by concentrating on speed. the actual speed, however, was affected by
concentrating on it in a negative way because we were flustered by the amount of mistakes we were making. we would also like to note that we are sorry for posting this in the regular forum. oops.

Act time: 237 +/- 22, 215 +/- 20
Think time: 76 +/- 60, 76 +/- 44
Read time: 122 +/- 99, 121 +/- 62
Negate time: 68 +/- 166, 7 +/- 74

Diana:
Act time: 258 +/- 37, 221 +/- 15
Think+A time: 298 +/- 26, 302 +/- 52
Read+T+A time: 464 +/- 65, 493 +/- 70
R+Think Negate+A time: 620 +/- 109, 905 +/- 293

Act time: 258 +/- 37, 221 +/- 15
Think time: 40 +/- 46, 83 +/- 55
Read time: 166 +/- 71, 189 +/- 88
Negate time: 156 +/- 127, 412 +/- 302

Brie:
Act time: 210 +/- 17, 229 +/- 19
Think+A time: 264 +/- 30, 234 +/- 11
Read+T+A time: 450 +/- 25, 391 +/- 27
R+Think Negate+A time: 408 +/- 40, 312 +/- 46

Act time: 210 +/- 17, 229 +/- 19
Think time: 54 +/- 35, 5 +/- 22
Read time: 186 +/- 40, 157 +/- 30
Negate time: -42 +/- 48, -79 +/- 54

Second times in each were while listening to music.


| Biology 103 | Course Forum Area | Biology | Serendip Home |