Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Bio 103, Lab 7: Oneself as a Biological Entity. II. Reacting
In last week's lab, we noticed that a part of oneself (the heart) was influenced by but not fully under the control of other parts of oneself. In this lab, we want to further develop the idea that oneself consists of an array of parts that interact with one another to give what we observe as behavior.
A touch starts signals moving in sensory neurons which eventually cause
signals to move in motor neurons which eventually cause muscle
contractions and movement. How long does it take to move when one is
touched, and why? How much of that time is the time it takes for
signals to move from the endings of sensory neurons to the endings of
motor neurons? How much of that time is the time it takes muscles to
contract and cause movement? That's what we'll be looking at in the
first part of the lab, and studying further in the second part
Following the demonstration, you and your team should develop your own
questions and observation protocols to explore some interesting aspect
of what is going on in reacting. For example, would you expect the time
taken to be different if the stimulus occurred at a more distant
location on the body? On the same side as the response as opposed to
the opposite side? If the response was with your dominant or your
non-dominant hand? Would you expect the time to change if you were
tired? preoccupied? had recently had coffee? Is it the time that
signals take within the nervous system that changes or is it the time
for muscles to contract and cause movement? Or both?
Don't try and answer ALL the questions. Pick one (or think up one) that
you're interested in and have a guess about. And collect enough data so
you have some confidence in your conclusions about that situation. And
write up your question/hypothesis, observations, conclusions in the lab
forum.
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
2 weeks 5 days ago
-
2 weeks 5 days ago
-
2 weeks 5 days ago
-
8 weeks 1 day ago
-
8 weeks 4 days ago
mind vs matter
Luisana, Crystal, Eri
Hypothesis:
The fact that each hemisphere of the brain corresponds to the opposite side of the body has lead our group to believe that there will be a deay in reaction time depending on the position of the body that is being stimulated and the side of the body that is reacting to it. The reponse time should be longer when the side of the body that is being stimulated, hit with the hammer, is also the side of the body that is the reaction to it, the hand that presses the button.
Conclusion:
We found that the whole theory of the alternative hemisphere that we initially predicted was partially correct. When we stimulated the left leg and had the right arm react to it it did so much more quickly than if this occured on the same side of the body. We only had some information that supported this idea but if this experiment were repeated with more trials, the outcome would be more accurate and render a more conclusive result.
Shanika, Sharhea, LaKesha
We decided to test the relationship between the distance and the response. We think that the distance from the brain, actually makes a difference from when we responded. We measured the Neutral Delay(ND), the Muscle Delay (MD), and the Response Time (RT). First, Sharhea was hit along the arm, from the bottom going up. The table below illustrates when she was looking and when she was not looking at the trigger.
Then we did Shanika, a set of times on the bottom of her arm and the top of the arm. We also did it for her looking and not looking.
We ended up with a lot of mixed data. For Shanika, this experiment was a lot of fun. When Shanika was looking, she actually pressed the trigger before we hit her, she anticipated the hit before it actually occured. Sharhea first set of data (looking) actually proved our hypothesis wrong. As we got closer to the brain the time did increase, rather than decrease. Our second hypothesis, we assumed that when we are looking our ND, MD and RT will decreased. It actually happened for myself and Shanika
Neuron Behavior
Kaitlin Cough, Elizabeth Harnett
Our hypothesis was that reaction time would be slower if you were distracted, and it did not matter how far the stimulus was from the brain: it would still react at the same time. We did four different experiments testing neuron behavior. Kaitlin and Elizabeth were both tested. Constant: we always poked on the hand, with exception of the foot trial.
Experiment 1: Poking the hand without any distraction.
Elizabeth
t1
t2
t3
ND
MD
RT
1.106
1.233
1.278
0.127
0.045
0.172
1.955
2.103
2.151
0.148
0.048
0.196
2.812
2.913
2.964
0.101
0.051
0.152
Kaitlin
t1
t2
t3
ND
MD
RT
4.37
4.508
4.561
0.138
0.053
0.191
6.494
6.6
6.65
0.138
0.05
0.188
10.214
10.34
10.392
0.126
0.052
0.178
Experiment 2: Poking on the foot without distraction.
Elizabeth
2.467
2.661
2.708
0.194
0.047
0.241
4.04
4.167
4.199
0.127
0.032
0.159
7.301
7.459
7.501
0.158
0.042
0.2
Kaitlin
6.982
7.114
7.156
0.132
0.042
0.174
8.931
8.995
9.092
0.064
0.097
0.161
13.418
13.573
13.636
0.155
0.063
0.218
Experiment 3: Poking on the hand while talking on the phone.
Elizabeth
1.005
1.224
1.289
0.219
0.065
0.284
19.684
20.073
20.121
0.389
0.048
0.437
27.064
27.374
27.408
0.31
0.034
0.344
Kaitlin
15.281
15.532
15.592
0.251
0.06
0.311
16.794
16.97
17.051
0.176
0.081
0.257
20.596
20.842
20.902
0.246
0.06
0.306
Experiment 4: Poking on the hand while reading.
Elizabeth
10.874
11.19
11.247
0.316
0.057
0.373
26.534
26.817
26.854
0.283
0.037
0.32
39.302
39.518
39.575
0.216
0.057
0.273
Kaitlin
10.865
10.956
10.996
0.091
0.04
0.131
13.912
13.993
14.058
0.081
0.065
0.146
7.462
7.627
7.684
0.165
0.057
0.22
We discovered that our first hypothesis was correct: if you were distracted, then the reaction time was much longer. This could especially be seen while we were talking on the phone. However, our second hypothesis was slightly disproven. We found that distance from the brain did have an effect on reaction time, even though the reaction time was not as slow as when we were distracted.
Our story: Don't talk on your cell phone when your driving!
Distance from the brain has a slight effect on reaction time, though nothing as drastic as distractions (reading, talking, etc.) Maybe a next step could have been to test the effect of music on reaction time, because usually when you are driving you are listening to music.
on stimuli & response.
Vivian Cruz, Saskia Guerrier, Eurie Kim
Hypothesis
Distance affects response time: the farther away the stimuli, the slower the response.
Observations
Vivian
Saskia
Our story
There seems to be no correlation between the distance of the stimuli and the response time (nor in neural delay, nor in muscle delay).
However, we did discover that the neural delay times correspond to the response times because the neural (neurons being transmitted to the brain and back) process directly affects the physical reaction of the person.
Therefore, the faster the neural process, the faster the reaction.
The muscle delay did not correspond to the speeds of neural delays nor response times. Since muscle delay reflects the muscle movement, any muscle movement could have been picked up in the process of the person's thumb pressing the button (for instance, one could've just moved the thumb one time, but the next time one may have moved her wrist and thumb).
Thus, there is no correlation in distance of stimuli versus response time because regardless of where the stimuli is, the person will respond, BUT that response time will depend on CONCENTRATION more than distance.
This could mean that response and reflex is fundamentally different because response is controlled depending on one's concentration, while reflex is more an automatic response.
So what does the automatic-ness of one's reflex depend on?
Hit Me Baby, One More Time.
We decided to test the difference in response time between genders (male and female). We hypothesized that there is indeed a difference, and that male response time would be quicker. We tested this by hitting the stimulator on the back of the subject's left hand. Here is our data:
The first average (first three sets of data) is Rachel's, the second is Andy's, the third is Kate, and the fourth is THA PROFESSAH Wil Franklin.
Therefore, we believe that our story that men have faster reaction times than women is a good one. However, we do not think it's as simple as that. While creating our hypothesis, we also considered the length of the nerve endings (height). While it seems that the reaction time does not differ because of height regardless of gender, we believe that within gender the height difference has an effect. For example, Wil Franklin (6'3'') had a slower reaction time than Andy (5'8''), and Rachel (5'8'') had a slower reaction time than Kate (5'4'').
Kate, Andy, & Rachel
MARIE HAS SUPERPOWERS O.O
We hooked electrodes up to Paige and Marie and poked them with the poker tool beginning with the foot, then the leg, then the arm, and then the head.
TRIAL 1 – Marie
Foot:
Neural delay: .11 seconds
Muscle delay: .06 seconds
Response time: .17 seconds
Leg:
Neural delay: .10 second
Muscle delay: .03 seconds
Response time: .13 seconds
Arm:
Neural delay: FLAWED ATTEMPT
Muscle delay:
Response time:
Head:
Neural delay: .02 seconds
Muscle delay: .04 seconds
Response time: .06
TRIAL 2 – Marie
Foot:
Neural delay: 0.28 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.04 seconds
Response time: 0.32 seconds
Leg:
Neural delay: 0.15 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.05 seconds
Response time: 0.2
Arm:
Neural delay: FLAWED ATTEMPT
Muscle delay:
Response time:
Head:
Neural delay: FLAWED ATTEMPT
Muscle delay:
Response time:
TRIAL 1 – Paige
Foot:
Neural delay: 0.23 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.1 seconds
Response time: 0.33 seconds
Leg:
Neural delay: 0.19 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.06 seconds
Response time: 0.25 seconds
Arm:
Neural delay: 0.17 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.05 seconds
Response time: 0.22 seconds
Head:
Neural delay: 0.15 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.33 seconds
Response time: 0.48 seconds
TRIAL 2 – Paige
Foot:
Neural delay: 0.15 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.04 seconds
Response time: 0.19 seconds
Leg:
Neural delay: 0.3 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.08 seconds
Response time: 0.38 seconds
Arm:
Neural delay: 0.19 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.07 seconds
Response time: 0.28 seconds
Head:
Neural delay: 0.02 seconds
Muscle delay: 0.06 seconds
Response time: 0.08 seconds
Our hypothesis was that the closer we poked the test subject to their arm (the place where the electrodes were), the faster their response time would be. Based on our current observations, this appears to be correct.
Marie also has superpowers because in these results and in subsequent tests (data not published here), Marie responded at almost the exact same time as poked, leading to almost zero reaction time.. This leads us to belive that she could possibly have extrasensory perception, as there is no other explanation; she did not hear anybody coming and we did not give her the opporunity to anticipate it.
For our experiment, we were
For our experiment, we were testing to see if caffine had any effect on a person's reaction time. We first tested all of our base scores. Here are the averages.
Samar: ND- 0.169 seconds, MD- 0.0383, RT- 0.2057
Catrina: ND- .1255, MD- 0.0475, RT- 0.173
Ruth: ND-0.188, MD- 0.333, RT- 0.245
Then we tested the caffeinated Samar after she chugged one can of normal Red Bull. Her new average times were
Samar (caffeinated): ND- 0.065, MD- 0.036, RT- 0.1013
As you can see, Samar's times were decreased after taking the caffine, especially the neural delay. We think that caffine has some effect on the central nervous system, which decreases the reaction time. Our observations support the story, found in Samar's first webpaper, that caffeine binds to neural receptors.
A further question we could explore is how caffeine withdrawal effects reaction time. We could test one of us (probably Ruth, who is an addict) after not having had any caffeine, and see what kind of effect it has.
Oneself as a Biological Entity: Reacting
Kyree Harmon
Kerlyne Jean
Kendra Sykes
We began our experiment hoping to determine whether the distance of the stimulus from the response button affected the response time. We hypothesized that the farther away the touch was from the button, the longer the response time would be. We performed one trial for a touch to the head, the arm, the knee, and the toe for each member of our group. We were sure to always touch on the left side for control purposes.
The results of our experiment were such: ND stands for Neural Delay, MD for Muscle Delay, and RT for response time.
According to our observations, the further away the touch, the longer the reaction time was generally. HOWEVER, our times were not the slowest for the touch that was farthest away. Though the times for the toe test were slower than those of the arm test, they were not the slowest of all though the toe was the farthest of all. These findings do not support our initial hypothesis, but we were still able to make several other interesting observations.
Firstly, KJ had the fastest reaction time for every test except the arm which happened to be the first test and the test that we were the most preoccupied during. KS had the slowest reaction time for every test except the arm also. We believe that this may have something to do with the fact that KJ is an athlete and athletes frequently are trained and drilled to improve response time. We also noticed that KH had one of her slowest response times during the arm test where she was barely awake. This suggests a connection between mental state and reaction time, and we would like to run further tests including on tired students, preoccupied students, and caffeine stimulated students.