Up to 61 subjects for the fourth dissertation experiment. This is great as it means we have 15-16 subjects in each of the four conditions. There was a no-show in one of the sessions earlier today, which means we need to go 58, 63, 64, ... when data collection resumes on Monday afternoon. Things are coming along, which is great.
And I'm wiped! This puts us at a total of 48. That's probably half of what we want at a minimum, with 24 per condition, although you could possibly go down to 20 or 16 if you really wanted to. We'll see what time and resources allow.
Yesterday I also installed air fresheners and put Lysol wipes in the labs to keep things clean. With so many subjects, the testing computers do actually start to get pretty gross. These safeguards will hopefully prevent against things, at least to a certain extent.
That's all for today. Not much to update. We had an interesting lab meeting where we read Storm, Friedman, Murayama, and Bjork (2014) and Peterson and Mulligan (2014). Interesting papers related to the testing effect. I'll save my thoughts.
In the period between my birthday (mid-October) and the holidays, I tend to eat a lot of junk, partly because it's cold and miserable and partly because there's a lot of junk around to be eaten. Here's the proof, a chart of body weight from May 2013 to October 2014.
Clearly October through January was not good for me (ignore May through July, which was self-proclaimed weight training season).
So to fight that uptick, I'm making a hard no alcohol, no dessert rule for the next four weeks, with possible exceptions for Halloween and Nov. 20-23 for the upcoming Psychonomics conference.
Anyone else want to join in?
I proposed an additional dissertation experiment and am amid data collection for it. My research assistant Deniz and I have consented 40 subjects. Two subject numbers were unable to complete the study in the allotted time (#13 and #14). We re-ran a new #14, but still need to re-run a #13. Somehow we also skipped #10. Thus, when data collection resumes tomorrow, we'll do 10, 13, and 41. The reason subject numbers are important in my study is that they're tied in the programming to the counterbalancing groups and experimental conditions. Thus, if one number is no good, we just throw it out and get another one.
Of course, the reason to go in and look at the data mid-data collection is just to ensure that everyone's completing the study as expected and that there are no bugs or glitches in the program. This process alerted me to one potential issue -- currently, if someone doesn't make a source decision (i.e., they selected NEW on the source test), I grade their source accuracy as INCORRECT. Obviously this is wrong -- when computing overall source accuracy, we should only look at OLD responses.
This has the potential to get pretty sticky and confusing as things progress, so I'll have to think carefully about these issues while working on the writeup.
It's a good day today -- we found out that our paper was accepted for publication in Science. I've been vague when discussing it for a while now (heck, maybe for even a year or so) as to not spoil the punchline, and it turns out that the contents are under embargo for at least another month or two anyway, so I can't share many details. What I can share, though, is that it should be a neat paper of general interest. Hopefully, too, it'll start to raise some interesting questions for collective memory researchers, as well as suggest some new ways of considering an interesting set of questions in a quantitative way. Keep an eye on this space and I'll start sharing things as soon as I have the opportunity.
It's been about three months without any updates here -- my apologies about that. The reason is that I stopped using Dropbox, and without Dropbox, there's no way to update this blog. There have been a few times when I've wanted to write a post, though, and for that reason I decided to reactivate Dropbox just for blogging purposes. So, hopefully, there'll be more of this to come.
Why did I stop using Dropbox, you might ask? Through a pretty roundabout set of developments. I've fallen in love with Google+ Photos. I love how the pictures I take on my iPhone are uploaded to the cloud, auto-enhanced, and organized in a meaningful way. I ran out of space on my Google Drive because I uploaded some photos. Because it didn't make sense to maintain some files in Dropbox and some in Google Drive, I eliminated Dropbox -- after all, their photo tools are inferior, even considering Carousel (which I haven't looked into in a while; I ought to).
So bottom line -- Google+ Photos are awesome. They're so good, in fact, I think I'm going to get a Nexus 6 when they're announced instead of an iPhone.