Method:
Seat the test subject comfortably and have s/he close their eyes. Remove the dermatome from its protective casing. Leave the dermatome completely closed for the first test. Begin by applying the dermatome to the test subject’s cheek. Ask the test subject if s/he can distinguish between two points, or just feels one point touching their skin. If the subject cannot distinguish two points, then widen the dermatome by 1 mm, and retry the test. Continue in this fashion until the test subject is able to distinguish two separate points contacting their cheek. At this time, record the distance between the two points of the dermatome on a data sheet (in mm).
Proceed in this fashion to test the subject’s forehead, forearm, back of leg, palm, tip of index finger, and tip of thumb. After this process has been completed on one test subject, perform it on at least 2 other persons. Dependant variables in this experiment include: the size and specification of dermatome, and the inability of test subjects to see the dermatome touching their skin. The independent variable is different humans’ sensitivity to touch. There are no groups for this experiment because only 3 test subjects are used. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in mm on a spreadsheet, measuring the distance between dermatome points on human body parts when the test subject was finally able to distinguish two independent pressured points.
Data were analyzed by finding the average between all 3 test subjects of sensitivity to dual-point touch distinguishment.
Showing posts with label method. Show all posts
Showing posts with label method. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Observations: People Holding the Door for Each Other, Method
Method:
Our test subjects included anybody who entered or exited the library during our observation period. Observations were made at the library’s entrance. Observers sat inside the building, off to the side of the entrance, so as not to affect persons entering or leaving the library, while holding a notebook. In that notebook, several columns were drafted under which tallies could be made. The observers closely watched individuals entering and leaving the library to identify their gender and record their frequency in opening or holding open a door for other individuals. In essence, the observation sought to record the frequency at which men held the door open for other men and women, and the frequency at which women held the door open for other women and men. For each occurrence of the above stated activity, a tally was made in the appropriate column of the spreadsheet.
Our test subjects included anybody who entered or exited the library during our observation period. Observations were made at the library’s entrance. Observers sat inside the building, off to the side of the entrance, so as not to affect persons entering or leaving the library, while holding a notebook. In that notebook, several columns were drafted under which tallies could be made. The observers closely watched individuals entering and leaving the library to identify their gender and record their frequency in opening or holding open a door for other individuals. In essence, the observation sought to record the frequency at which men held the door open for other men and women, and the frequency at which women held the door open for other women and men. For each occurrence of the above stated activity, a tally was made in the appropriate column of the spreadsheet.
Depth Perception Obstruction, Method
Method:
We had test subjects kneel on the floor, approximately six feet away from our testing apparatus. This apparatus was a box with two vertical sticks that moved laterally back and forth from the test subject when strings attached to them were manipulated. The test subjects each wore a pair of goggles for the first half of testing, with neither eye being obstructed. Each patient was asked to manipulate the strings to move the laterally moving sticks to a position where they seemed to be most equidistant from the patient his/herself. At this point, a measurement was recorded, according to a ruler placed on top of the apparatus, which told how far apart the sticks in question actually were. Once the measurement was taken, the lateral sticks were then replaced far apart, to a reset position from which the next trial would begin.
We repeated this trial five times with each participant. Then, we had each participant put on a pair of goggles of the same make but that had one eye obscured. The test subjects would alternate from one subject to the next which eye was obstructed, so that an equal number of left and right subject eyes were obstructed through the course of the experiment. Once more, we had each test subject complete five trials in this fashion, recording each time the number of centimeters away from accurate their depth perception actually led them.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to perceive depth. The independent variable was replacing an unobstructed pair of goggles with a pair of one-eye-obstructed goggles. Because there were only four test subjects, there were no groups, however two subjects obstructed their left eye for the experiment, while the other two obstructed their right eye, in order to create a balance within the testing environment. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in cm on a spreadsheet, measuring the distance that the test sticks were apart from each other, after the test subject had determined they believed they were equidistant from his/herself.
Data were analyzed by finding the average between all 4 test subjects’ results and creating a graph from this data, and by performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results.
We had test subjects kneel on the floor, approximately six feet away from our testing apparatus. This apparatus was a box with two vertical sticks that moved laterally back and forth from the test subject when strings attached to them were manipulated. The test subjects each wore a pair of goggles for the first half of testing, with neither eye being obstructed. Each patient was asked to manipulate the strings to move the laterally moving sticks to a position where they seemed to be most equidistant from the patient his/herself. At this point, a measurement was recorded, according to a ruler placed on top of the apparatus, which told how far apart the sticks in question actually were. Once the measurement was taken, the lateral sticks were then replaced far apart, to a reset position from which the next trial would begin.
We repeated this trial five times with each participant. Then, we had each participant put on a pair of goggles of the same make but that had one eye obscured. The test subjects would alternate from one subject to the next which eye was obstructed, so that an equal number of left and right subject eyes were obstructed through the course of the experiment. Once more, we had each test subject complete five trials in this fashion, recording each time the number of centimeters away from accurate their depth perception actually led them.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to perceive depth. The independent variable was replacing an unobstructed pair of goggles with a pair of one-eye-obstructed goggles. Because there were only four test subjects, there were no groups, however two subjects obstructed their left eye for the experiment, while the other two obstructed their right eye, in order to create a balance within the testing environment. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in cm on a spreadsheet, measuring the distance that the test sticks were apart from each other, after the test subject had determined they believed they were equidistant from his/herself.
Data were analyzed by finding the average between all 4 test subjects’ results and creating a graph from this data, and by performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results.
Mirror Hand Tracing Experiment, Method
Mirror Tracing: Performance of Non-Dominant Hand Post-Dominant Hand Practice
Method:
An apparatus was set up that, when a test subject’s hand entered it, they would no longer be able to see their hand or the piece of paper under it, but rather would look just above their hand into a mirror which would display their hand and the tracing paper, but now visually augmented and/or disoriented because of the mirror. The test subject needed to trace a six-pointed star, but within two lines that were spaced approximately 1 centimeter apart. The subject began tracing through the star shape, and needed to go all the way through it until s/he reached their starting place.
The time it took to complete this task was recorded in seconds, and afterward each test was scored. The scoring system worked in that an “error” was classified as the subject’s pen having crossed the line of the star shape. Each line-cross counted as 1 error. Test subjects first performed this task with their non-dominant hand 3 times, and then with their dominant hand 14 times. Finally, the performed 3 more tests with their non-dominant hand again. No breaks were allowed, despite any fatigue the subjects may have been experiencing.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to navigate the star shape’s innards. The independent variable was the subject’s hand, switching between dominant and non-dominant to measure practice effects. No groups were formed because of a lack of test subjects. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in seconds and number of errors on a spreadsheet. The data were analyzed through calculation of all 3 test subjects’ average performance with regard to both time and errors, and performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results, after graphing these data.
Method:
An apparatus was set up that, when a test subject’s hand entered it, they would no longer be able to see their hand or the piece of paper under it, but rather would look just above their hand into a mirror which would display their hand and the tracing paper, but now visually augmented and/or disoriented because of the mirror. The test subject needed to trace a six-pointed star, but within two lines that were spaced approximately 1 centimeter apart. The subject began tracing through the star shape, and needed to go all the way through it until s/he reached their starting place.
The time it took to complete this task was recorded in seconds, and afterward each test was scored. The scoring system worked in that an “error” was classified as the subject’s pen having crossed the line of the star shape. Each line-cross counted as 1 error. Test subjects first performed this task with their non-dominant hand 3 times, and then with their dominant hand 14 times. Finally, the performed 3 more tests with their non-dominant hand again. No breaks were allowed, despite any fatigue the subjects may have been experiencing.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to navigate the star shape’s innards. The independent variable was the subject’s hand, switching between dominant and non-dominant to measure practice effects. No groups were formed because of a lack of test subjects. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in seconds and number of errors on a spreadsheet. The data were analyzed through calculation of all 3 test subjects’ average performance with regard to both time and errors, and performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results, after graphing these data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)