Psychophysics: Dual-point Touch Distinction, Discussion

Discussion:
Our study showed that certain parts of the human body are, on average, less sensitive and able to detect dual-point touch from a dermatome than others.
Our hypothesis was affirmed by this experiment in that certain features of the human body are more likely to recognize dual-point touch than others. We had several weaknesses in this experiment, including a lack of test subjects, and, therefore, a lack of raw data for analysis. Additionally, the method of measurement (mm) was a bit too small to be recorded with an acceptable amount of accuracy. For example, different researchers may interpret the results of the dermatome in context to a ruler differently than others, thereby skewing results. Also, the researchers performing this study ideally should not have been its key test subjects. The researchers were 67% women and 33% men, and a different conclusion could possibly be reached if this study were conducted with separate groups of men and women containing large numbers of test subjects of both sexes.
An idea for expansion of this experiment could include expanding testing beyond just the sense of touch, to one of the other four senses. To test the sense of hearing, an experiment could be designed which would determine at what distance from each other two noise making devices can be distinguished by the human ear. For example, two clicking devices which produce the same tone could be placed side by side. Both devices would emit noise so that the human listener would believe they were listening to only one device. Assuming the test subjects’ view of these devices is blocked, and the test is performed while holding these devices on the side of the persons’ face, the noise-making devices could be separated by a small distance at a time. One device would travel toward the front of the subject’s head while the other toward the back, and the experiment would determine at what point the listener could determine that in fact two devices were emitting this noise, rather than one.

Observations: People Holding the Door for Each Other, Discussion

Discussion:
For our mid-term project, our group has decided to observe, overall, the proportion of men versus women who enter the library. Our group will simply record the number of men and the number of women who enter the library during our monitoring period. To “enter” the library can be operationally defined as a student person who enters through both layers of front doors into the library. Our team wants to find out if, proportionally, more women than men visit the library. In order to determine this, we’ll need to compare our proportional results with the proportions of the AU population. That means obtaining from the appropriate campus office the statistics regarding the AU student population, including: the number of students who attend AU, both graduate and undergraduate; the numbers of which are men and women; and the number of students we need to subtract from our population because they’re studying abroad.

Depth Perception Obstruction, Discussion

Discussion:
The data collected in this experiment indicate that binocular vision is much more successful at aiding subjects in determining correct depth perception than monocular vision. The expected outcome of this experiment, as highlighted in the hypothesis, was validated with the obvious correlation seen in the data as well as a statistical-significance-indicating p-value. We had several weaknesses in this experiment, including a lack of test subjects, and, therefore, a lack of raw data for analysis. The testing apparatus had a “stick” to it whereby as the test subject was manipulating the strings attached to the vertical posts, occasionally s/he would have to pull very hard to move the sticks past a certain point. Also, the researchers performing this study ideally should not have been its key test subjects.
A future study that could be performed, related to this one, would be to test depth perception in human beings related to moving objects. Cars, landscape, or other indicators could be viewed from a moving vehicle in which subjects can obstruct one eye and attempt to determine relative distance from the object.

Mirror Hand Tracing Experiment, Discussion

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.