Discussion:
The data in this experiment suggest that with dominant-hand practice, the performance of test subjects while using their non-dominant hand to complete the same task improved in their ability to minimize errors, but did not show enough evidence that the time it takes for them to complete the task was reduced. The p-values resulting from the statistical analysis of the data collected partially negated the hypothesis made before conducting this experiment because statistical significance was found with regard to error reduction, although not with regard to test completion time.
Weaknesses of this experiment include a lack of test subjects, and the lack of a flawless testing apparatus. A future study related to this one which could be performed would assess the ability of human beings to perform the same task with other parts of their body, i.e. their feet. The findings in this study, pertaining to hands, can only offer insight into transferable practice effects with regard to that single body part. The results may have been significantly different if another part of the human body were tested.
Showing posts with label mirror hand tracing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mirror hand tracing. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Mirror Hand Tracing Experiment, Results
Results:
The data of this experiment seem to have experienced a complementary balance in that one test subject performed the task terribly while another performed it with greater efficiency. The third test subject fell between the two. The data obtained from this experiment are summarized in the following graphs, and they suggest that practice effects definitely played a role in test subjects’ performance. The “Time of Completion” graph displays the difficulty test subjects had initially with navigating the test placed before them. Yet, after these subjects performed 14 tests with the opposite hand, and returned to their non-dominant hand, their performance was greatly improved. This suggests that the 14 dominant-hand tests improved the subjects’ ability to more quickly navigate the non-dominant tests later on.
The errors graph shows similar yet intriguingly different results. It appears that the subjects made many errors in their first 3 attempts at completing the trial with their non-dominant hand. When attempted with their dominant hand, the number of errors committed in their trials revealed an gradual decline of errors. When subjects returned to testing with their non-dominant hand, their testing error frequency began a rise back to previously attained non-dominant hand testing levels. While this result could be a confounding condition of test subject attrition, the data suggest that practice effects played less a role in error reduction than in time reduction.
In performing a statistical analysis of the data, the two-tailed t-test was chosen because its appropriateness, given the hypothesis that practice effects would not be observed with any statistical significance. The p-value for the “Time of Completion” data calculated to 0.2295. This p-value exceeds the alpha value of 0.05. What this means is that hand-to-hand transferable practice effects did not play a statistically significant role in improving test subjects’ abilities to complete the star-tracing task any quicker.
The p-value for the “Errors” data was 0.0007. This p-value undercuts the set alpha value of 0.05, indicating statistical significance in that dominant-hand to non-dominant-hand transferable practice effects were present.
The data of this experiment seem to have experienced a complementary balance in that one test subject performed the task terribly while another performed it with greater efficiency. The third test subject fell between the two. The data obtained from this experiment are summarized in the following graphs, and they suggest that practice effects definitely played a role in test subjects’ performance. The “Time of Completion” graph displays the difficulty test subjects had initially with navigating the test placed before them. Yet, after these subjects performed 14 tests with the opposite hand, and returned to their non-dominant hand, their performance was greatly improved. This suggests that the 14 dominant-hand tests improved the subjects’ ability to more quickly navigate the non-dominant tests later on.
The errors graph shows similar yet intriguingly different results. It appears that the subjects made many errors in their first 3 attempts at completing the trial with their non-dominant hand. When attempted with their dominant hand, the number of errors committed in their trials revealed an gradual decline of errors. When subjects returned to testing with their non-dominant hand, their testing error frequency began a rise back to previously attained non-dominant hand testing levels. While this result could be a confounding condition of test subject attrition, the data suggest that practice effects played less a role in error reduction than in time reduction.
In performing a statistical analysis of the data, the two-tailed t-test was chosen because its appropriateness, given the hypothesis that practice effects would not be observed with any statistical significance. The p-value for the “Time of Completion” data calculated to 0.2295. This p-value exceeds the alpha value of 0.05. What this means is that hand-to-hand transferable practice effects did not play a statistically significant role in improving test subjects’ abilities to complete the star-tracing task any quicker.
The p-value for the “Errors” data was 0.0007. This p-value undercuts the set alpha value of 0.05, indicating statistical significance in that dominant-hand to non-dominant-hand transferable practice effects were present.
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.
Mirror Hand Tracing Experiment, Introduction
Introduction:
The phenomenon of practice effects has been addressed in this study which sought to determine if practicing a mirror-tracing test before and after some practice using the opposite hand would yield a significantly different performance. In general, as a person becomes more exposed to a task, their performance at that task will improve. Theory holds that later attempts at this task will require less time for completion, and yield fewer mistakes than previous tries. To be analyzed in the outcome of this experiment is the learning curve produced in assessing the transferability of practice effects from one hand to the other, namely the number of errors a subject makes in his/her tracing tests, and the time it takes s/he to complete the test. I expected the second go-round of non-dominant hand testing would reveal no practice effects and, therefore, no statistically significant difference in performance.
The phenomenon of practice effects has been addressed in this study which sought to determine if practicing a mirror-tracing test before and after some practice using the opposite hand would yield a significantly different performance. In general, as a person becomes more exposed to a task, their performance at that task will improve. Theory holds that later attempts at this task will require less time for completion, and yield fewer mistakes than previous tries. To be analyzed in the outcome of this experiment is the learning curve produced in assessing the transferability of practice effects from one hand to the other, namely the number of errors a subject makes in his/her tracing tests, and the time it takes s/he to complete the test. I expected the second go-round of non-dominant hand testing would reveal no practice effects and, therefore, no statistically significant difference in performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)