Re: R: Payment for research
Dear Gino,
Thank you very much for the video.
I have some difficult to understand it. I hope you could clarify and sorry for my poor understanding.
It seems that there is a finger of the experimenter that propose the task to some "hat person" who operate on the body of the "receiver". The receiver is connected to the system you generated that transduces the activity perceived by the receiver.
The finger proposes two position (up and down) to the "hat person" that operates to the "receiver".
If this is the protocol, it seems that the sensitivity of the slider is somewhat too high. In particular, it seems that the "receiver" sometimes move quickly for the same activity of the "hat person" back and forth to the full scale (+ and -) of the slider.
If I correctly understood, and this could not be the case, there is the possibility that such high gain of the slider induces some oscillations by the "receiver" just because he/she will not control too much the movement of the slider.
These oscillations (induced by the not complete control of the slider behavior by the receiver) could act as a confound factor in the analysis. In fact, we will see oscillations not due to the "internal" representation of the perception of the receiver but rather by her/his poor control of the slider gain.
From this video some considerations arose. Please take them in the good spirit of friendship and as possible contribution to the generation of an efficient experimental setup. I have to say that I am not able at all to realize what you have done so far with the device in some short time°
After this disclaimer, the issues:
It could be good to regulate the gain of the slider in such a way it could have a slower movement according to the receiver activity. It could allow more time to the receiver to focus on his/her internal feelings and it will decrease the oscillations reported due to the inaccurate control of the device by the receiver.
It will be important for the students (the receivers) to familiarize prior to the experience with the device. Otherwise, we will analyze their learning curve of the slider functioning and this is not isomorphic to their perceived impressions and will act as a confound in the analysis. For instance, the experimenter will ask to code with the slider a predetermined sequence of "intensity perceived" in such a way they could master the slider accurately. Such as "give me an intensity 1 (the minimum), now an intensity 10 (the maximum), then an intensity 5, then 7, then 9, etc etc". When receivers will be able to do that with a good accuracy of the slider movement they could be admitted to the experimental test with Alan after.
The device at this time seems to be able to code one dimension (or "light" or "energy") perceived by the "receiver" since there is just one slider. However, this could be fine as long as we ask to the receiver to transduce only one of such dimension into the slider movement. Thus, asking to focusing on "energy perception" when compared to "light perception" or viceversa. This will double, however, the experimental duration of the test since we need to investigate separately such aspect of their perception (maybe in two separate days).
The noise of slider could act as a disturb or a cue for the "sender". Not a major issue now but something that have to be considered in a setup in which more than one receiver will interact with the "sender".
Thank you again for your efforts
All the best from Rome
Fabio
lust back. Will see Gio tomorrow.
Also, see this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ejq4gconen038v/IMG_5363.MOV?dl=0
I met with Ray lee in New York. He has this protocol as well:
Greetings from a freezing London! Here some group pictures from Havana ! Ornella
Travelling. Please excuse my brevity and eventual typos.