FALL, 2002

Thinking Times

Using Time to Think

Name:  Laura Silvius
Subject:  Read/Think/Negate/Act
Date:  2002-11-05 14:58:49
Message Id:  3537
Laura Silvius

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.

Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Trial 3 test
Date:  2002-11-05 15:09:25
Message Id:  3538
Elizabeth Damore Brenda Zera

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

Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Trial 3 test
Date:  2002-11-05 15:09:34
Message Id:  3539
Elizabeth Damore Brenda Zera

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

Name:  debe and mande
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  hey
Date:  2002-11-05 15:14:05
Message Id:  3540
Mande and Diana were wondering if presenting an external noise, such as diana sayign fart over and over under her breath would affect reactin times to the stimulus. We hypothesized that this woudl raise reaction time and thinking time, as mande would have to eliminate an external noise form her thinking process.

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.

Username:  Anonymous
Date:  2002-11-05 15:17:58
Message Id:  3542
For our experiment, we had one subject watching the screen and telling the other subject when to click the mouse. The subject with the mouse could not see the screen. We were curious to see if the communication time between the two subjects would affect the total response time. For trial one, CT watched the screen and told ST when to click the mouse. Our data for that trial is as follows (all measurements in milliseconds):

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

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

Name:  MaryBeth Curtiss
Subject:  Reaction Lab
Date:  2002-11-05 15:24:52
Message Id:  3543
After seeing my results for the reaction lab, I decided to experiment with some of the factors that may have affected my reaction times. In class, I experimented with the reaction program, reacting slowly without trying to beat my own times, as I was doing the first time. I found that the kind competition I was having with myself in the kind of test atmosphere did not radically change my times when I attempted the same test more relaxed. In general, my times were slightly longer by a few milliseconds, but overall I had fewer of the long trials that raised my averages.

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.

Name:  jen
Subject:  peripheral vision
Date:  2002-11-05 15:25:40
Message Id:  3544
Joanna Robertson
Jennifer Rusk

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.

Name:  Stephanie and Kate
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Practice Makes Perfect?
Date:  2002-11-05 15:25:48
Message Id:  3545
Hypothesis: Increased practice decreases reaction times.
We conducted three trials of Stephanie's reaction times to test this:
trial 1: 272 +or- 238
trial 2: 268 +or- 121
trial 3: 217 +or- 45

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

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

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.

Name:  Margaret Hoyt
Date:  2002-11-05 15:27:14
Message Id:  3546
Margaret Hoyt
Kyla Ellis

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:

Act 277
Think 231
Read 146
Negate 302

Act 279
Think 138
Read 217
Negate 180

Trial 2 (with distraction)

Act 335
Think 141*
Read 280
Negate 192*

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

Act 330
Think 120*
Read 151*
Negate 194

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.

Name:  kathryn bailey, sarah frayne
Username:  Anonymous
Date:  2002-11-05 15:29:33
Message Id:  3547
Hypothesis: Listening to different types of music will affect think time.


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

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

Act Time..................251................257
Time to Think.............32..................48

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.

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.

Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  Reaction Times
Date:  2002-11-06 14:54:35
Message Id:  3562
Chelsea W. Rosenthal
Roma Hassan

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.


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

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

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.

Name:  Laura B. and Adrienne
Date:  2002-11-06 15:01:14
Message Id:  3563
For the first experiment our average times were:
Laura: Act time: 239; Think act time: 303; Read, think, act: 427; Read, think-negate, act: 419

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.

Subject:  thinking time
Date:  2002-11-06 15:14:10
Message Id:  3564
Michele Doughty, M.R., Diana La Femina

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:


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


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


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.

Name:  Rosie, Bobbi, Annie
Username:  Anonymous
Date:  2002-11-06 15:22:27
Message Id:  3567
After gathering an initial set of data, we decided to test the practice effect. We hypothesized that as we gained practice experience, our times would decrease. To test this, we performed a second trial, this time performing ten trials rather than five. We thought that as a second overall trial (consisting of a greater number of individual trials), that our reaction times would become faster. Following is a summary of our data:

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.

Name:  Catherine Rhy
Subject:  Reaction Time
Date:  2002-11-06 15:23:13
Message Id:  3568

In my own experiment, I decided to use the Act and Read, Think-Negate, Act labs to figure out reaction time differences between just acting, negating "do not", and negating "don't". No error data was taken off for any of the three experiments.

Act Time Data:
188, 189, 196, 224, 175, 177, 211, 275, 212, 226
Average: 207, Standard Deviation: 29

Negate "Don't" Time Data:
514, 335, 940, 551, 439, 595, 548, 458, 479, 348

Negate "Do Not" Time Data:
336, 826, 437, 416, 464, 342, 555, 436, 234, 575

Obviously, Act Time took a lot less time than both Negate "Don't" and Negate "Do Not" Times. At no point were the second and third able to be responded to as fast as the first, and the second and third reactions obviously had much higher standard deviations. But "Don't" had less standard deviation than "Do Not", and came up much more frequently in the experiment. I also became trained to look for only the words "Do", "Do Not", and "Don't", and "Don't" was by far the easiest to distinguish of the three. The lab involving negation had much more error (14 times) than the lab involving solely action (1 time). Lastly, although it is difficult to see because outside stimuli frequently had the effect of slowing my reaction rate, some of my numbers down each lab's line show that later on, I was more capable of reacting faster if I was focused, not because of pre-disposition, but because of experience.
Name:  Mer
Date:  2002-11-06 15:28:55
Message Id:  3569

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Name:  Lauren Friedman & Carrie Griff
Subject:  if you can't walk the walk, don't fall out of your chair: a true story
Date:  2002-11-06 15:30:25
Message Id:  3570
A Study in Efficiency

Introduction: In this experiment, we tested the efficacy of multi-tasking. We wanted to see whether or not the pressure to continue a coherent conversation with a fellow would affect the response time in cases one and two, and if so, to what extent.

Methods: While one individual took the tests, the other engaged her in conversation. Before each conversation, we chose a subject which had to be elaborated upon by both parties during the experiment. The conversations required active listening and participating from both of us.

Case 1 Case 1 + Case 2 Case 2 +
Lauren 215 252 304 330
Carrie 254 337 375 386
All number values contained in the above table are in milliseconds.
The plus sign ("+") indicates the added element of conversation.

Conclusions: As expected, the time to act and time to think both rose when the subject had to multitask (conversing and test-taking simultaneously). For Carrie, her time to act was 83 milliseconds longer and her time to think was 11 milliseconds longer when involved in conversation. For Lauren, her time to act was 37 milliseconds longer and her time to think was 26 milliseconds longer when involved in conversation. We believe that the practice gained from Case 1 contributed to the significant decrease in differention seen in Case 2 vs Case 2+. We can conclude that multitasking increases the time it takes to both act and think; therefore, multitasking does not save time, but in fact decreases the efficiency of each of the tasks.
Name:  jodie and lawral
Subject:  finally. ha ha.
Date:  2002-11-06 15:39:27
Message Id:  3572
we hypothesized that our accuracy would be lower if we concentrated on speed. we tested this by repeating the second, third, and fourth cases twice each,
once concentrating on accuracy and once concentrating on speed. here are our results:

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

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.

Name:  Will, Diana, Brie, Erin
Username:  Anonymous
Subject:  "The Flaming Lips"
Date:  2002-11-06 15:40:16
Message Id:  3573
Act time: 237 +/- 22, 215 +/- 20
Think+A time: 313 +/- 55, 291 +/- 39
Read+T+A time: 435 +/- 82, 412 +/- 47
R+Think Negate+A time: 503 +/- 67, 419 +/- 56

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

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

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 |

Send us your comments at Serendip

© by Serendip 1994- - Last Modified: Wednesday, 02-May-2018 10:53:18 CDT