Doing research in the summer is especially frustrating.
I opened 20 slots for subjects to come into the lab and participate in my experiment for class credit for next week. So far I have 2 people signed up and at least 1 will probably drop out. This, more than any other reason, is why people do research with monkeys (Note: this isn't true).
Thank goodness I have undergraduate research assistants and other grad students that I can badger into participating.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
On Designing Experiments and Collaboration
I've been busy the last few weeks getting an experiment off the ground. We'll be using variants of this same study design in a few upcoming projects with a range of different collaborations. What this means practically is that I've spent a long time programming (and reprogramming) and checking my math. There are still some kinks to work out, but we're ready to start running some subjects.
When this study design was first conceived it was supposed to be run by one of our undergraduate research assistants. Initially it was supposed to be work out to be a way for us to collect some plot data while fulfilled the requirements for her honors thesis. By the end of last semester it become obvious that the data collected wasn't going to be useful due to a long and ridiculous series of programming, counterbalancing, and procedural errors. Eventually I ended up having to take over all the programming and data analyses for a project I was only supposed to be supervising.
As a result of that catastrophe my lab decided that we would redo the experiment from scratch with better programming and data collection procedures. Because I'm running a few other projects that are supposed to get going this summer, I was supposed to collaborate with another graduate student in our lab to set everything up. A week or so it become obvious to me that I was doing the entire thing myself and that it was conflicting with some of my other responsibilities. Not wanting to put down another student to their advisor (which I happen to think is bad grad student protocol) I just completed my side of the project and waited for my collaborator to finish their's. It got to the point where I apparently showed enough frustration with the collaboration that my collaborator was pulled off the experiment and I was put in charge.
Now, running an entire experiment on my own isn't exactly a small amount of work but its much easier for me to be accountable only to myself when trying to set up all the practical details of an experiment that, from a subject's point of view, will be very simple. All thats left is to train our new lab assistants to run subjects while I prepare the next set of experiments.
I'm in the early stages of a few other collaborative projects that I think will turn out to be much more productive than this one. Mostly its just amazing to me that a something so crucial to what we are doing in the lab, and what we will be doing for years to come, has been so mishandled.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Artsy New Design
Blogspot finally updated their templates so I'll be messing around with things for a few days.
Monday, June 7, 2010
What I will be doing this summer (in as few words as I can manage)
The original version of this was submitted for a grant proposal. I didn't get it, but I think the following represents a decent summary of the kind of work I'll be doing this summer. Its a bit technical, but mostly geared to a non-expert audience.
Background
Working memory (hereafter abbreviated as WM) is a limited capacity system responsible for maintaining and manipulating information necessary for task completion (Baddeley, 1974; 1986). This summer, we will examine a major limitation of WM capacity as well as the selection of items held within WM. In collaboration with a clinical psychology lab, we will also begin to examine WM in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD). Both lines of research will utilize behavioral and fMRI methods.
Though this conception is not undisputed (See, Bays & Husain, 2008), the capacity of WM is commonly discussed in terms of the number of items (Fukuda et al. 2010), with current estimates placing WM capacity at approximately four items (Cowan, 2001). Because WM has such a limited capacity, it is important that its contents be updated efficiently. Interference from previously relevant material, known as proactive interference (PI), is thought to be one of the major limiting factors in WM capacity (Jonides &a Nee, 2006). Attention-based processes that result in the selection of relevant material represent a method for overcoming PI (Oberauer, 2001). Our lab has previously examined the behavioral and neural correlates of PI (Yi et al., 2009) and WM selection (Oh & Leung, 2010). The goal of our research this summer is to examine the relationship between PI and WM selection.
Summer Research Plan
For all our experiments, we will utilize a delayed recognition paradigm with a selection cue inserted during the delay period. For each trial, subjects will be shown (and asked to remember) a series of 2 stimuli. After a brief delay, a cue will indicate to remember either a specific stimuli from this series or the entire set for the remainder of the trial. Following another delay, a probe item will be presented. Upon presentation of the probe, subjects will be asked to identify if the probe stimuli is the same (or not the same) as the stimuli or set of stimuli specified by the cue. Response accuracy and reaction time (RT) measurements will be taken for each trial. Trials with cues specifying to remember 1 item (WM selection) will be compared to trials specifying to remember both items (no selection). In order to measure PI, trials with highly familiar probe items (i.e. non-selected items from the initial stimulus set) will be compared to trials with less familiar probe items. In separate experiments, we will study the effect of the selection cue on holding faces, outdoor scenes, and words to determined in WM selection and PI behaviors are similar across stimuli-type. In preparation for our MDD project, we will conduct a separate series of experiments, using the same paradigm, using emotional stimuli.
Based on previous research, we expect to see a facilitation effect for selected items. Behaviorally, such an effect would manifest as higher accuracy and lower reaction time for selected items. Due to PI, highly familiar probes are expected to be associated with lower accuracy and higher RT than less familiar probes. In terms of fMRI results, previous work in our lab has found that both WM selection and PI are associated with activity in prefrontal and parietal regions (Yi et al., 2009; Oh & Leung, 2010). Similar patterns of activation are expected in the present study, though our analysis will focus on examining the processes together rather than independently.
In parallel to our research into the relationship between WM selection and PI, we will also begin a line of work focused on understanding these (and other) behaviors in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD). Though MDD is primarily considered an emotional condition, it is accompanied by a constellation of cognitive deficits including increased interference from negatively valenced material (For review, see Gotlib & Joorman, In Press). Recent work suggests that MDD may be associated with increased interference in WM regardless of stimuli valence (Joorman et al., 2010). Previous work has focused mainly on the ruminative aspects of WM interference (See Thomas & Elliot, 2009). In contrast, our work will focus on examining this interference from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. We will utilize non-emotional stimuli and a paradigm specifically designed to examine WM selection both behaviorally and neurally (Oh & Leung, 2009).
Summary
Because proactive interference represents a major limiting factor in working memory capacity and WM selection represents a method for overcoming PI, we feel that it is important to understand the behavioral and neural correlates of the interaction between WM selection and PI. Aside from providing additional insight into how and why WM is limited, this work also has significance for understanding a thus far under-researched aspect of pathologies that compromise WM capacity, such as major depressive disorder.
Works Cited Listed in Comments
Working memory (hereafter abbreviated as WM) is a limited capacity system responsible for maintaining and manipulating information necessary for task completion (Baddeley, 1974; 1986). This summer, we will examine a major limitation of WM capacity as well as the selection of items held within WM. In collaboration with a clinical psychology lab, we will also begin to examine WM in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD). Both lines of research will utilize behavioral and fMRI methods.
Though this conception is not undisputed (See, Bays & Husain, 2008), the capacity of WM is commonly discussed in terms of the number of items (Fukuda et al. 2010), with current estimates placing WM capacity at approximately four items (Cowan, 2001). Because WM has such a limited capacity, it is important that its contents be updated efficiently. Interference from previously relevant material, known as proactive interference (PI), is thought to be one of the major limiting factors in WM capacity (Jonides &a Nee, 2006). Attention-based processes that result in the selection of relevant material represent a method for overcoming PI (Oberauer, 2001). Our lab has previously examined the behavioral and neural correlates of PI (Yi et al., 2009) and WM selection (Oh & Leung, 2010). The goal of our research this summer is to examine the relationship between PI and WM selection.
Summer Research Plan
For all our experiments, we will utilize a delayed recognition paradigm with a selection cue inserted during the delay period. For each trial, subjects will be shown (and asked to remember) a series of 2 stimuli. After a brief delay, a cue will indicate to remember either a specific stimuli from this series or the entire set for the remainder of the trial. Following another delay, a probe item will be presented. Upon presentation of the probe, subjects will be asked to identify if the probe stimuli is the same (or not the same) as the stimuli or set of stimuli specified by the cue. Response accuracy and reaction time (RT) measurements will be taken for each trial. Trials with cues specifying to remember 1 item (WM selection) will be compared to trials specifying to remember both items (no selection). In order to measure PI, trials with highly familiar probe items (i.e. non-selected items from the initial stimulus set) will be compared to trials with less familiar probe items. In separate experiments, we will study the effect of the selection cue on holding faces, outdoor scenes, and words to determined in WM selection and PI behaviors are similar across stimuli-type. In preparation for our MDD project, we will conduct a separate series of experiments, using the same paradigm, using emotional stimuli.
Based on previous research, we expect to see a facilitation effect for selected items. Behaviorally, such an effect would manifest as higher accuracy and lower reaction time for selected items. Due to PI, highly familiar probes are expected to be associated with lower accuracy and higher RT than less familiar probes. In terms of fMRI results, previous work in our lab has found that both WM selection and PI are associated with activity in prefrontal and parietal regions (Yi et al., 2009; Oh & Leung, 2010). Similar patterns of activation are expected in the present study, though our analysis will focus on examining the processes together rather than independently.
In parallel to our research into the relationship between WM selection and PI, we will also begin a line of work focused on understanding these (and other) behaviors in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD). Though MDD is primarily considered an emotional condition, it is accompanied by a constellation of cognitive deficits including increased interference from negatively valenced material (For review, see Gotlib & Joorman, In Press). Recent work suggests that MDD may be associated with increased interference in WM regardless of stimuli valence (Joorman et al., 2010). Previous work has focused mainly on the ruminative aspects of WM interference (See Thomas & Elliot, 2009). In contrast, our work will focus on examining this interference from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. We will utilize non-emotional stimuli and a paradigm specifically designed to examine WM selection both behaviorally and neurally (Oh & Leung, 2009).
Summary
Because proactive interference represents a major limiting factor in working memory capacity and WM selection represents a method for overcoming PI, we feel that it is important to understand the behavioral and neural correlates of the interaction between WM selection and PI. Aside from providing additional insight into how and why WM is limited, this work also has significance for understanding a thus far under-researched aspect of pathologies that compromise WM capacity, such as major depressive disorder.
Works Cited Listed in Comments
Friday, June 4, 2010
By Popular Request
Green Bean, Red Onion, and Roast Potato Salad with Rosemary Vinaigrette
We brought this to the annual family Memorial Day/birthday barbeque. At first I thought the giant bowl of salad we made was way too much, but there was absolutely none left by the end of the day. The original recipe came from here, but we made a couple of adjustments that are reflected in the recipe below.
Ingredients
3 pounds red boiling potatoes
1/4 + 2/3 cup olive oil
1 head of garlic
1/4 cup red-wine vinegar
1 tablespoon fresh rosemary leaves or 1 teaspoon dried
1 red onion, sliced thin lengthwise
2 pounds frozen green beans
24 Kalamata olives (Half a jar of already diced olives works just fine)
Prep
-Preheat oven to 425 degrees. Quarter the potatoes and toss them in 1/4 cup olive oil on a large baking sheet/roasting pan. Roast the potatoes for 30 minutes, stirring them every 10, or until tender.
-Peel the outer skin layers and cut the top off the garlic head exposing to cloves inside. Wrap the garlic head in tin foil after drizzling about a tablespoon of olive oil over it. Roast the garlic alongside the potatoes for about 30 minutes or until the cloves are soft.
-While the potatoes and garlic are cooking, microwave or otherwise cook the green beans. When the beans are done, use a colander to run them under cool water. Chop the onion and olives (if necessary). Adding too many olives is almost inevitable, to prevent this I suggest eating a bunch of olives before you even start cooking. That way you'll have less to accidently add.
-When potatoes and garlic are finished cooking and sufficiently cool to handle, removes all the cloves from the garlic head and chop them into tiny pieces. Combine the onion, olives, potatoes, beans, and garlic in a large bowl.
-Combine 1/3 cup red wine vinegar and 2/3 cup olive oil with diced rosemary. Stir the mixture thoroughly to emulsify.
-Add the dressing to the salad and serve at room temperature.
We brought this to the annual family Memorial Day/birthday barbeque. At first I thought the giant bowl of salad we made was way too much, but there was absolutely none left by the end of the day. The original recipe came from here, but we made a couple of adjustments that are reflected in the recipe below.
Ingredients
3 pounds red boiling potatoes
1/4 + 2/3 cup olive oil
1 head of garlic
1/4 cup red-wine vinegar
1 tablespoon fresh rosemary leaves or 1 teaspoon dried
1 red onion, sliced thin lengthwise
2 pounds frozen green beans
24 Kalamata olives (Half a jar of already diced olives works just fine)
Prep
-Preheat oven to 425 degrees. Quarter the potatoes and toss them in 1/4 cup olive oil on a large baking sheet/roasting pan. Roast the potatoes for 30 minutes, stirring them every 10, or until tender.
-Peel the outer skin layers and cut the top off the garlic head exposing to cloves inside. Wrap the garlic head in tin foil after drizzling about a tablespoon of olive oil over it. Roast the garlic alongside the potatoes for about 30 minutes or until the cloves are soft.
-While the potatoes and garlic are cooking, microwave or otherwise cook the green beans. When the beans are done, use a colander to run them under cool water. Chop the onion and olives (if necessary). Adding too many olives is almost inevitable, to prevent this I suggest eating a bunch of olives before you even start cooking. That way you'll have less to accidently add.
-When potatoes and garlic are finished cooking and sufficiently cool to handle, removes all the cloves from the garlic head and chop them into tiny pieces. Combine the onion, olives, potatoes, beans, and garlic in a large bowl.
-Combine 1/3 cup red wine vinegar and 2/3 cup olive oil with diced rosemary. Stir the mixture thoroughly to emulsify.
-Add the dressing to the salad and serve at room temperature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)