BIOLOGY 103
FALL, 2003
LAB 8
|
| BIOLOGY 103 | |
So, what about "thinking"? Can that be "quantified in time and space"? Its an interesting question, first asked explicitly in the late 1800's with a very clever set of observations then requiring elaborate equipment. Today we can make the same observations more easily. See Time to Think?.
The observational set up allows one to measure various kinds of thinking, as well as to test hypotheses about how they are related to one another. Once you get the hang of it, you can/should develop your own hypotheses about what might or might not influence the various kinds of thinking time. And develop your own experiments. Do one as a group in class. And you're free to do additional ones any place you can find a computer.
Remember that we've reached a phase where we'd like to have our hypotheses and observations sufficiently in hand so that we can generate as conclusions something more than "more data is needed".
Hypothesis: Poking people in places farther away from the brain will take them longer to react to the stimulus.
Alice:
ankle: 0.24-0.04
knee: 0.17-0.04
chest: 0.19-0.04
foot: 0.34-0.02
calf: 0.18-0.04
back: 0.19-0.03
calf: 0.20-0.02
wrist: 0.18-0.04
forehead: 0.19-0.03
Flicka:
b. knee: -0.54-0.03
forearm: 0.34-0.01
neck: 0.23-0.03
thigh: 0.43-0.01
elbow: 0.12-0.01
b of shoulder: 0.22-0.01
calf: 0.49-0.01
l. hand: 0.26-0.03
forehead: 0.38-0.01
Conclusion: We decided that there is no correlation between the poking and the distance from the brain because in some cases, the reaction time was greater when stimulated farther away from the brain. Our data was inconsistent, which leads us to conclude that there are other factors that influence the reaction time.
Hypothesis: Foreign language speakers will react slower to English instructions b/c it takes longer to process.
Observations:
These are only the averages out of 10 trials.
Romina (non native speaker)
Case 1: 250 sd:16
Case 2: 340 sd 82
Case 3: 495 sd 49
Case 4: 968 sd 323
Toiya (English speaker)
Case 1: 234 sd 16
Case 2: 320 sd 65
Case 3: 514 sd 78
Case 4: 555 sd 147
*sd= standard deviation
Overall, our results supported our hypothesis. It seemed that Romina had a significantly slower reaction time than Toiya, especially when the instructions became more complicated, i.e Case 4. In the case of Case 3, Romina pressed the button at the wrong time several times causing her scores to be randomly deleted. She therefore had to pay closer attention which may have contributed to her faster score.
Michelle
Case 1: 207 ms, 13 ms.
Case 2: 308 ms, 97 ms.
Case 3: 474 ms, 131 ms.
Case 4: 471 ms, 131 ms.
Average:
Case 1: 313.39 ms.
Case 2: 376.59 ms.
Case 3: 633.34 ms.
Case 4: 773.55 ms.
Conclusions:
By analyzing the steady increase in reaction time, it is apparent that thinking and reacting are two different processes. They are certainly related, but represent very different demands on the brain. When the exercise demanded a simple reaction, response time was much quicker. As the demands increased, so did the response time.
Time to Act: 245 p/m 62
" Think: 85 p/m 93
" Read: 177 p/m 119
" Negate: 175 p/m 193
I thought that the more trials I did, the faster my time would become, because my brain would adjust/anticipate the next action of the program. However, it happened that the last two trials of each test were the worst times. Additionally, outside distractions increased my response time. So, there was no consistency in the trials of each test, when isolated, probably due to outside distraction. However, as I suspected, the more processes the test had, the longer it took my brain to react. In other words, each test took longer and longer to complete. However, my thinking time was less than half the time it took me for the other processes. I anticipated the act time to be the least, because it was the least complex of the processes, basically muscle reaction. However, it was longest. The think time was the least. This leads me to the conclusion that thinking and reacting are two different processes.
Test Subject 1 (Sarah):
A: 282, sd: 47
TA: 392, sd: 58
RTA: 490, sd: 71
RNTA: 585, sd: 164
Test Subject 2 (Natalya):
A: 241, sd: 21
TA: 276, sd: 47
RTA: 428, sd: 88
RNTA: 455, sd: 85
Next, we decided to investigate how chewing gum affected our thinking time. We used the same method as in the first set of trials, but each chewed a piece of Dentyne Ice while conducting the new trials. Sarah hypothesized that she would perform better while chewing gum, while Natalya had the opposite hypothesis for herself. These hypotheses were based on previous experience and personal preferences. Here are the data:
Sarah (test subject 1):
A: 249, sd: 80
TA: 384, sd: 85
RTA: 622, sd: 141
RNTA: 569, sd: 177
Natalya (test subject 2):
A: 284, sd: 28
TA: 403, sd: 130
RTA: 539, sd: 72
RNTA: 740, sd: 393
Sarah's hypothesis for herself was supported by the data because overall, her average times for every test were faster when chewing gum. The standard deviations for each of her tests while chewing gum were bigger though, than the original test, showing that while in general, the second trial was faster, it also had a bigger variety. Natalya's hypothesis for herself held true in all cases as well. However, her standard deviations were also larger, except in the RTA case. But the RNTA case shows an especially large standard deviation during her second trial while chewing gum.
Overall we can't conclusively state that chewing gum either helps or hinders thinking time, but we can state that our individual hypotheses based on personal preference were correct.
Hypothesis 2: Performing the second group in a reversed order, our case 4 (Originially case 1) times would decrease due to prolonged focus on the previous three tests.
Method: We performed 10 trials twice for each of the four cases. The first group of data was simply following the case as laid out. For the second group of data, the sequence was performed in reverse order- from case 4 to case 1. The data is as follows:
MELISSA:
Group 1
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
675 A 255 30 10
675 TA 325 99 10
675 RTA 559 140 10
675 RNTA 495 74 10
Group 2
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
686 A 270 65 10
686 TA 302 57 10
686 RTA 492 148 10
686 RNTA 430 105 10
NANCY:
Group 1
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
689 A 270 58 10
689 TA 371 96 10
689 RTA 501 56 10
689 RNTA 578 119 10
Group 2
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
695 A 271 31 10
695 TA 362 57 10
695 RTA 532 90 10
695 RNTA 449 31 10
ABBY:
Group 1
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
690 A 334 142 10
690 TA 303 65 10
690 RTA 578 126 10
690 RNTA 597 51 10
Group 2
subj_id trial_type avg sd num_trials
696 A 244 42 10
696 TA 370 63 10
696 RTA 522 99 10
696 RNTA 568 138 10
Summary: From our results, our results were not consist with our hypothesis- actually becoming the opposite of the expected in two of the three case subjects.
We observed that when performing task 4 (the most difficult) first a opposed to last, times decreased for all of us.
When acting/talking, subjects carried on a conversation while completing the "Act" excercise.
Subject 1 -
Act: 234 +/- 27
Acting & thinking: 304 +/- 28
Reading, thinking, acting: 553 +/- 124
Reading, thinking, negating, acting: 722 +/- 522
*Acting, talking: 320 +/- 19
Subject 2 -
Act; 233 +/- 25
Thinking, acting: 398 +/- 81
Reading, thinking, acting: 664+/- 107
Reading, thinking, negating, acting: 901 +/- 142
* Acting, talking: 464 +/- 145
Conclusion: Our data supports our hypothesis. Subject 2, for example, had a diference of 165 milliseconds between "act" and "thinking and acting", and a 66 millisecond difference between "thinking and acting" and "talking and acting". It appears that talking requires thought and thus slows the reation time.
Manuela A 191 10 5 Average reactions: 312.11
Manuela TA 292 58 5 Average 375.55
Manuela RTA 387 53 5 Average 630.87
Manuela RNTA 373 92 5 Average 769.23
Maria A 193 40 5
Maria TA 215 41 5
Maria RTA 408 70 5
Maria RNTA 345 59 5
Time to Act: 193 ± 40 milliseconds
Time to Think: 22 ± 58 milliseconds
Time to Read: 193 ± 82 milliseconds
Time to Negate: -63 ± 92 milliseconds
Our hypothesis predicted that Manuela as a non native English speaker would take significantly longer to follow instructions and react and follow instructions and do the opposite than Maria, native English speaker.
Observations: Both students have comparable times, though Maria was faster in the last trial (negating instructions). Both students were also significantly faster than the averages in all of the trials, and it is important to keep in mind that our times to act and think and act, are pretty similar, Maria being faster in the second.
Our hypothesis then can not be confirmed. Also keeping in mind the averages, for which we are assuming most test takers have English as a native language (?), both the native and the non native English speaking students were quicker. Determining level of fluency is also more difficult, which might undermine differences.
|
Act Time Think, Act Time: Read, Think, Act Time: Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: Time to Act: Time to Think: Time to Read: Time to Negate: |
Su-Lyn control 250 ± 73 milliseconds 339 ± 40 milliseconds 541 ± 151 milliseconds 504 ± 60 milliseconds 250 ± 73 milliseconds 89 ± 84 milliseconds 202 ± 157 milliseconds -37 ± 163 milliseconds |
Su-Lyn with music 325 ± 134 milliseconds 355 ± 52 milliseconds 558 ± 159 milliseconds 587 ± 164 milliseconds 325 ± 134 milliseconds 30 ± 144 milliseconds 203 ± 168 milliseconds 29 ± 229 milliseconds |
Act Time Think, Act Time: Read, Think, Act Time: Read, Think-Negate, Act Time: Time to Act: Time to Think: Time to Read: Time to Negate: |
Brittany control 244 ± 41 milliseconds 281 ± 54 milliseconds 575 ± 224 milliseconds 546 ± 119 milliseconds 244 ± 41 milliseconds 37 ± 68 milliseconds 294 ± 231 milliseconds -29 ± 254 milliseconds |
Brittany with music 348 ± 122 milliseconds 384 ± 47 milliseconds 483 ± 45 milliseconds 700 ± 166 milliseconds 348 ± 122 milliseconds 36 ± 47 milliseconds 99 ± 45 milliseconds 217 ± 166 milliseconds |
Variable A:
A 318
A 291
A 242
A 253
A 287
A 306
A 512
SA 356
A 321
A 304
RNTA 834
RNTA 522
RNTA 888
RNTA 1076
RNTA 988
RNTA 1047
RNTA 943
RNTA 908
RNTA 511
RNTA 468
Shafiqah
Control B:
A 254
A 214
A 234
A 259
A 237
A 424
A 226
A 276
A 231
A 233
RNTA 908
RNTA 834
RNTA 704
RNTA 712
RNTA 896
RNTA 748
RNTA 450
RNTA 758
RNTA 608
RNTA 650
Variable B:
A 243
A 493
A 234
A 225
A 208
A 276
A 272
A 288
A 257
A 307
RNTA 638
RNTA 554
RNTA 822
RNTA 832
RNTA 796
RNTA 794
RNTA 674
RNTA 632
RNTA 578
RNTA 530
Our variable represents the change in action time and thinking speed after prayer. Our observatins concludes that our times are much slower in the variable than in the control. We believe this to be so, for when the mind has been cleared we have to think twice as much.
Summary of Data:
Stefanie's Average Times:
Trial 1: 196 milliseconds
Trial 2: 251 milliseconds
Trial 3: 479 milliseconds
Trial 4: 536 milliseconds
Alison's Average Times:
Trial 1: 231 milliseconds
Trial 2: 320 milliseconds
Trial 3: 499 milliseconds
Tiral 4: 721 milliseconds
From the data, we see that Alison's reaction times are consistently slower than Stefanie's. Our data is consistent with our hypothesis in that Stefanie, the athlete, is faster than Alison.
Hypothesis- Reaction time will consistently go down as the subject become habituated to the experimental process. The response time will become increasingly lower because the subject is desensitized to the directions.
Megan's data (in milliseconds)
ACT- 196, 213, 198, 185, 265
THINK, ACT- 288, 470, 274, 236, 251
READ, THINK, ACT- 426, 356, 365, 336, 298
READ, THINK/NEGATE, ACT- 784, 409, 319, 352, 367
Enor's data (in milliseconds)
ACT- 232, 271, 260, 211, 217
THINK, ACT- 242, 612, 458, 454, 354
READ, THINK, ACT- 692, 848, 610, 520, 619
READ, THINK/NEGATE, ACT- 1104, 941, 744, 826, 419
Conclusions- Our results did not prove our hypothesis. We noticed that many of our trials had a slight improvement in reaction time as the trials went on, yet the improvement was not consistent in the majority of our trials. The reason for this may be that when the directions are first read, the subject anticipates the response more strongly. The experiment is more exciting because it is new and thus your mind is more focused on the experiment. As the time goes on, and more trials are done, the anticipation lessens.
Julia
Undistracted: (701) 289, 780*, 639, 1009
Distracted: (704) 445, 531, 611, 1071
Alice
Undistracted: (708) 210, 321, 585*, 476
Distracted: (711) 260, 417, 530, 573
*There were two pieces of data that did not support the hypothesis. The first was when Julia got distracted when she wasn't supposed to, making her reaction time ridiculously long. The second was Alice's undistracted read/think/react time, which for reasons unknown to us was higher than we would have expected.
Except for these two glitches, though, the data did support the idea that distraction lengthens people's times.
Test time averages without an object:
A: 232 ms (sd 39)
TA: 375 ms (sd 100)
RTA: 511 ms (sd 87)
RNTA: 637 ms (sd 119)
Acting time: 232 ms
Thinking time: 143 ms
Reading time: 136 ms
Negating time: 126 ms
Test time averages with an object (in this case, my car key, which is of the totally awesome switchblade design):
A: 284 ms (sd 32)
TA: 406 ms (sd 93)
RTA: 577 ms (sd 116)
RNTA: 828 ms (sd 173)
Acting time: 284
Thinking time: 122 ms
Reading time: 171 ms
Negating time: 251 ms
Discussion:
First of all, it is important to note the following external factors which would most definitely have affected my results: a) I am extremely tired and b) the room in which I conducted this experiment was quite noisy. That having been said, these results seem to be in support of the part of my hypothesis that claimed that fidgeting with an object would lengthen my reaction time. In fact, according to the data it would be safe to say that fidgeting slows down all of my actions. In the second trial, my thinking time actually became shorter (by, it should be noted, the smallest increment of change out of all the results above); however, that could just as easily be attributed to my having familiarized myself with the structure and content of the experiment. Thus: will fidgeting help me think about my homework? We're not really sure, but it's possible. Will it help me finish my homework faster? Conclusively: no.
Of course, these results are only really applicable to myself.
Lindsay Not Distracted:
Acting: 252 ms
Thinking:73
Reading: 157
Negating: 82
Lindsay Distracted:
Acting: 319
Thinking: 64
Reading: 222
Negating: 48
Lindsay Difference:
Acting: 67 ms
Thinking: -9 ms
Reading: 65 ms
Negating: -34 ms
Adina Not Distracted
Acting: 268 ms
Thinking:45 ms
Reading: 224 ms
Negating: 246 ms
Adina Distracted
Acting: 308 ms
Thinking: 52 ms
Reading: 271 ms
Negating: 51 ms
Adina Difference:
Acting: 40 ms
Thinking: 7 ms
Reading: 47 ms
Negating: -195
Our acting and reading times were both lengthened by the distractiions. However, our negating times were both reduced and our thinking times were about the same. From our observations, it appears that the visual distraction hinders our physical responses like acting and reading, but not our mental processes like thinking and negating. To account for the significant in negating time, we believe that we became accustomed to the distractions and were able to focus and overcome them.
We postulated that it takes more time for a non-native speaker of English to read the commands in English and to negate the commands in English. Mariya also thought that it will be easier for her to think in Russian while she was negating the commands.
We performed three sets of trials (10 trials each). Maggie performed the trials as a native English speaker and Mariya as a Russian native speaker. Mariya performed two sets of reading and negation trials. During the first one she tried to just read the instructions and react to them without focusing on the language in which she was processing it. During the second one she read the instructions in English, translated them to herself and told herself to negate them in Russian.
Observations:
Maggie
A 260 milliseconds
TA 331 milliseconds
RTA 523 ms
RNTA 437 ms
With Average Negation Time of -86ms
Mariya
1st set of observations (simply thinking and negating)
A 232 ms
TA 324ms
RTA 538ms
RNTA 873ms
With Average Negation Time of 335ms
2nd set of observations (thinking and negating in Russian)
RTA 526ms
RNTA 1412ms
With Average Negation Time of 886ms
The first part of our hypothesis is supported by data collected. It took Mariya and Maggie about equal time to respond to non-verbal stimulae, however, it took Mariya significantly longer than Maggie both to read the instructions and to negate them. The second part of our hypothesis (that it will take less time for Mariya to negate the instructions if she thinks in Russian) is not refuted by data. Mariya's Average Negation Time when she was thinking about verbal instructions in Russian was significantly longer (886ms) than her Average Negation Time when she wasn't focusing on the language she was using (335ms). She believes that she was thinking in English during her first trials.
Hypothisis: Level of sleep will correlate with all categories(time to act, time to think, time to read, and time to negate).
*All time is in milliseconds
Test Subject A (Denise):
Tme to Act: 200 sd. 23
Time to Think: 57 sd. 65
Time to Read: 284 sd. 98
Time to negate: 38 sd. 323
Test Subject B (Ramatu):
Time to Act: 260 sd.74
Time to Think: 133 sd. 119
Time to Read: 306 sd. 217
Time ti Negate: 124 sd.371
Test Subject C (Rochelle):
Time to Act: 280 sd. 76
Time to Think: 413 sd. 105
Time to Read: 1080 sd. 228
Time to Negate: 942 sd. 228
We conclude our hypothesis to be inaccurate. As shown in our observation there are clearly other factors beside sleep level that can affect our response times, there were no data to establish any patterns,including one that would support our hypothesis.
We hypothesised that attempting to hold a generic conversation would raised the times in the trials of cases 2, 3, and 4, but would not have any significant effect on trial 1.
Jessica, the first subject, recored these marks:
Control (ID 713)
AVG SD
A 306 106
TA 391 107
RTA 641 66
RNTA 796 159
Distracted (1D 710)
AVG SD
A 330 82
TA 400 71
RTA 728 43
RTNA 950 164
We found that, on average, it took more time when the subject was distracted, but the standard deviation was less for the set of distracted trials.
Patty's marks:
Control (ID 717)
AVG SD
A 193 13
TA 311 38
RTA 481 61
RNTA 671 341
Distracted (ID 721)
AVG SD
A 285 69
TA 268 52
RTA 509 94
RTNA 992 498
For Patty, it took more time when distracted, but the standard deviation was also larger for the set of distracted trials.
We found that relatively, all of the trials were affected by conversational distraction, so our hypothesis was partly false. We may have been originally assuming that if thinking or motor skills were needed from the subject, as long as it did not involve the specific re-actionary tasks as provided by the first trial we were messuring, that it would nothave as great of an effect. However, cases 1-4 were all affected by conversational distration.
Hypothesis: Distraction increases the time it takes to act, think, read and negate.
Results:
Flicka
Case 1
No Distraction Av 248 ms SD 15 ms
Distraction Av 231 ms SD 19 ms
Case 2
No Distraction Av 335 ms SD 105 ms
Distraction Av 331 ms SD 54 ms
Case 3
No Distraction Av 584 ms SD 136 ms
Distraction Av 582 ms SD 134 ms
Case 4
No Distraction Av 515 ms SD 84 ms
Distraction Av 739 ms SD 188 ms
With distraction time to act DEcreased 17 ms
time to think DEcreased 4 ms
time to read DEcreased 2 ms
time to negate INcreased 224 ms
Katy
Case 1
No Distraction Av 199 ms SD 15 ms
Distraction Av 216 ms SD 57
Case 2
No Distraction Av 330 ms SD 88 ms
Distraction Av 323 ms SD 44 ms
Case 3
No Distraction Av 474 ms SD 131 ms
Distraction Av 544 ms SD 151 ms
Case 5
No Distraction Av 547 ms SD 134 ms
Distraction Av 748 ms SD 322 ms
With distraction time to act INcreased 17 ms
time to think DEcreased 7 ms
time to read INcreased 70 ms
time to negate INcreased 201 ms
*****
Based on our results we think that distraction affects people differently. Flicka was able to block out the distractions and even think faster than without distractions. In Case 4 this was reversed. We believe that this is due to the difficulty of the case because we both had trouble with it even without the distractions. While Katy's acting time is faster, it took longer for her to respond with distractions in 3 out of 4 cases.
Hypothesis: As compared to a person with no such disability, a person with a diagnosed reading disability will take longer to perform a task involving reading, but will not take significantly longer or shorter to perform tasks involving only reacting and thinking.
Data Collected:
Person #1 has no diagnosed reading disability (Control).
Person #2 HAS a diagnosed reading disability (Experimental).
Controls: both subjects wear glasses (corrected vision).
Each avg. number was compiled from 10 pieces of data.
Person #1: Task -- Act
Average Time -- 264 milliseconds
Standard Deviation -- 62 milliseconds
Task -- Think, Act
Average Time -- 348 millisec.
Standard Deviation -- 83 millisec.
Task -- Read, Think, Act
Average Time -- 571 millisec.
Standard Deviation -- 114 millisec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #2: Task -- Act
Avg. Time -- 259 millisec
Stand. Dev. -- 111 millisec.
Task -- Think, Act
Avg. Time -- 426 millisec.
Stand. Dev. -- 92 millisec.
NOTE: Errors - 2 x click-too-soon, 1 x click incorrectly
Task -- Read, Think, Act
Avg. Time -- 678 millisec.
Stand. Dev. -- 434 millisec.
NOTE: Errors - 1 x click-too-soon, 1 x click incorrectly
Our Findings:
Our findings support our hypothesis. While average reaction times (Act) are very similar for persons #1 and #2 -- 264 vs. 259, not significantly different -- average Read, Think and Act times are significantly different for the two, with Person #2 being significantly slower at 678 millisec. as opposed to 571 millisec, a difference of approximately 15% (which counts for something!). It seems that having a reading disability does, indeed, increase reading time!
But this is not for certain, because it might just be increasing thinking time. The two averages obtained for the Think, Act experiment were also significantly different: 434 for #2, vs. 348 for #1, about a 20% difference! According to this data, it would appear that having a reading disability increases THINKING time, but not reading time. This suggests that our hypothesis does not "work" in this case, and that a "Reading disability" might actually suggest a disability -- or slowing down -- in THINKING rate.
Hypothesis: As compared to a person with no such disability, a person with a diagnosed reading disability will take longer to perform a task involving reading, but will not take significantly longer or shorter to perform tasks involving only reacting and thinking.
Data Collected:
Person #1 has no diagnosed reading disability (Control).
Person #2 HAS a diagnosed reading disability (Experimental).
Controls: both subjects wear glasses (corrected vision).
Each avg. number was compiled from 10 pieces of data.
Person #1: Task -- Act
Average Time -- 264 milliseconds
Standard Deviation -- 62 milliseconds
Task -- Think, Act
Average Time -- 348 millisec.
Standard Deviation -- 83 millisec.
Task -- Read, Think, Act
Average Time -- 571 millisec.
Standard Deviation -- 114 millisec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #2: Task -- Act
Avg. Time -- 259 millisec
Stand. Dev. -- 111 millisec.
Task -- Think, Act
Avg. Time -- 426 millisec.
Stand. Dev. -- 92 millisec.
NOTE: Errors - 2 x click-too-soon, 1 x click incorrectly
Task -- Read, Think, Act
Avg. Time -- 678 millisec.
Stand. Dev. -- 434 millisec.
NOTE: Errors - 1 x click-too-soon, 1 x click incorrectly
Our Findings:
Our findings support our hypothesis. While average reaction times (Act) are very similar for persons #1 and #2 -- 264 vs. 259, not significantly different -- average Read, Think and Act times are significantly different for the two, with Person #2 being significantly slower at 678 millisec. as opposed to 571 millisec, a difference of approximately 15% (which counts for something!). It seems that having a reading disability does, indeed, increase reading time!
But this is not for certain, because it might just be increasing thinking time. The two averages obtained for the Think, Act experiment were also significantly different: 434 for #2, vs. 348 for #1, about a 20% difference! According to this data, it would appear that having a reading disability increases THINKING time, but not reading time. This suggests that our hypothesis does not "work" in this case, and that a "Reading disability" might actually suggest a disability -- or slowing down -- in THINKING rate.