Review Board Form For Experiment: Measuring Reaction Time To Visual Stimuli

You will use this form to get permission from the Review Board to conduct your study. You may not begin collecting data until you receive a signed copy of your form. The purpose of this form is to enable the Board to verify both the safety and confidentiality of all participants. It should also help you to think more about your study and to plan it before beginning.

Title of Experiment __

Name(s) of Researchers___

1. Briefly describe the purpose of the experiment.

2. Who will be the participants? How will they be chosen?

3. How will confidentiality be maintained? How will you identify data associated with each participant?

4. Are there any potential risks, physical or psychological, to participants? If so, what? How will you, as the researcher, minimize these risks?

5. Describe your debriefing procedures.

6. Describe the procedures of the study. Give enough detail so that the Board can make a judgment about your study.

Purpose of the experiment

The purpose of the test is to measure the reaction time (RT) to visual stimulus of the participants using perceptual motor tasks that can help to understand and time the duration and temporal sequence of cognitive functions (Jain et al., 2015; Woods et al., 2015). This study is also referred to as ‘mental chronometry test’ which is an important aspect of cognitive and experimental psychology (Quaiser?Pohl et al., 2016). The reaction time (RT) is the time that elapsed between the presentation of a sensory stimuli and the response to that stimuli (Jain et al., 2015). This RT is widely identified to be an important indicator of information processing speed as well as efficiency that indicates the speed with which an individual perform mental operations that is required to complete a particular task (Woods et al., 2015). Thus this experiment aimed to assess the information processing speed of the participants and measure how fast they responded to the visual stimulus (of the color red) with the correct action (pressing the blue button) thus  measuring the simple reaction time. Measuring the mental chronometry of the participants through simple reaction time can help to understand how the reaction time can vary as a function of age and gender, thereby helping to develop an understanding the relation between these variables (Greiner et al., 2014).

The participants will be randomly chosen. The participants would comprise of individuals who use computers from various age groups who would be selected using an online application to the intended participants. Individuals who show interest to participate in the study will be invited to take the test on their computers online, the results of which will then go to the researchers for analysis. This have been based on the opinion of Emerson (2015), who suggested that random sampling is an effective research technique as it helps to overcome selection bias and can effectively represent the target population. 

Petrova et al (2016) suggested that confidentiality of participants is important for a psychological study as it ensures the protection of the research participants from the misuse of their information and therefore should be addressed by researchers. Confidentiality of the participant’s identities and personal information can be maintained by maintaining the anonymity of the participants in the records and results. Information such as the names and reaction times of the participants would also be kept secure to ensure their confidentiality (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2016). Additionally, randomly generated codes will be used to identify each participant and the document relating the codes of the participants to their personal information would be maintained on separate documents to enhance confidentiality (Radford et al., 2016). Identifiable data (such as names, contact information and reaction times) would be encrypted to prevent unauthorized access and data breach. Identifiers such as names and addresses would also be removed from the document containing the reaction times (Bierhoff & Wornefeld, 2016). Moreover, access to the identifiable information of the participants would also be restricted on a ‘need to know’ basis to ensure it stays protected and confidential at all times. Storage of the data would also be properly secured to prevent unauthorized access and breach of data security as well as to prevent tampering of information (Lupia & Elman, 2014).

Selection of participants

Using randomly generated codes can also help to associate the data regarding the reaction time from each participant thereby ensuring that the results of the experiments are not directly associated with the personally identifiable information of the participants and thus helping to maintain their anonymity (Bierhoff & Wornefeld, 2016).

The experiment does not have any physiological risks since it does not involve any significant physical activity of the participants. Moreover, the participants will take part in the experiment from the safety of their own homes thereby protecting them from any environmental factors and physiological risks. However the study can cause some stress among the participants since during the experiment they can develop an apprehension of the test results and due to the desire to perform well in the experiment (Glendon & Clarke, 2015). Moreover, the participants can also try to anticipate the stimuli presented to them due to which they can give the wrong reactions due to misperceptions (Belling et al., 2015). Both these factors can affect the accuracy of the results but would not have any long term psychological implications or impacts on the participants.

The risks of stress due to anticipation can be minimized by using a sequence of stimuli that can help to understand the average response times of each participant and therefore eliminate the probability of incorrect results due to anticipation or apprehensions (Glendon & Clarke, 2015).

After the completion of the experiment, the participants will be informed about the results and findings of the experiment, reflecting upon what has happened in the experiment and provide insights on the significance of the findings and its relation to the aim of the experiment. During the debriefing, the researchers would also share information about future scope of studies based on the findings along with any possible challenges associated with further studies. Each of the participants would also be individually informed about their performances in the experiment (Dufrene & Young, 2014).

Additionally, the participants would also be given the assurance that the experiment or its experience did not cause any physiological or psychological harm on the participants during the debriefing and contact information of the researchers would be shared if the participants wished to contact the researchers in the future. The debriefing would allow a post experiment follow-up with the participants that will help the researchers to collect feedback from the participants by using a feedback form. The researchers can also conduct an open seminar where the results and findings from the study can be discussed which can be attended by all participants (Gardner et al., 2017).

Maintaining confidentiality

Randomly selected participants would be sent invitations for the experiment, providing them information regarding the aim of the study and the process of the experiment. A form will be provided where the respondents can state their name and age. The form can also be used to check the computer proficiency of the respondents to understand if they would be able to follow the online instructions and carry out the experiment on their own. In the study, respondents who have agreed to the invitation for the experiments would be sent online links to the experiment software application which the participants can install on their computers. Steps for installing and using the software will be given to every respondent along with a video tutorial explaining the steps. Respondents who did not qualify the age criterion would not be sent the link to the experiment and would be informed that they are on the waiting list for the next study.

The experiment would consist of red or blue light coming on the computer screen where the participants have to press the space button every time they see the color red only and not for the color blue. During the experiment, the red and blue lights will come up randomly on the screen several times, with the response to the red light being measured every time. The software will record all the response times and calculate a mean response time. The data will be sent automatically to the researchers in excel format that can help to analyze the data. At the end of the experiment, the researchers will debrief all the participants individually as well as on an open seminar where the results and findings are discussed.

References:

Belling, P. K., Suss, J., & Ward, P. (2015). Advancing theory and application of cognitive research in sport: Using representative tasks to explain and predict skilled anticipation, decision-making, and option-generation behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 45-59.

Bierhoff, H. W., & Wornefeld, B. (2016). The Social Psychology of Trust with Applications. Trust and Community on the Internet: Opportunities and Restrictions for Online Cooperation, 48.

Dufrene, C., & Young, A. (2014). Successful debriefing—Best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: A literature review. Nurse Education Today, 34(3), 372-376.

Emerson, R. W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling: How does sampling affect the validity of research?. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (Online), 109(2), 164.

Gardner, A. K., Kosemund, M., Hogg, D., Heymann, A., & Martinez, J. (2017). Setting goals, not just roles: Improving teamwork through goal-focused debriefing. The American Journal of Surgery, 213(2), 249-252.

Glendon, A. I., & Clarke, S. (2015). Human safety and risk management: A psychological perspective. Crc Press.

Goodwin, C. J., & Goodwin, K. A. (2016). Research in psychology methods and design. John Wiley & Sons.

Greiner, J., Schoenfeld, M. A., & Liepert, J. (2014). Assessment of mental chronometry (MC) in healthy subjects. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 58(2), 226-230.

Jain, A., Bansal, R., Kumar, A., & Singh, K. D. (2015). A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 5(2), 124.

Lupia, A., & Elman, C. (2014). Openness in political science: Data access and research transparency: Introduction. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 19-42.

Petrova, E., Dewing, J., & Camilleri, M. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research: Challenges from one study. Nursing Ethics, 23(4), 442-454.

Quaiser?Pohl, C., Jansen, P., Lehmann, J., & Kudielka, B. M. (2016). Is there a relationship between the performance in a chronometric mental?rotations test and salivary testosterone and estradiol levels in children aged 9–14 years?. Developmental psychobiology, 58(1), 120-128.

Radford, J., Pilny, A., Reichelmann, A., Keegan, B., Welles, B. F., Hoye, J., ... & Lazer, D. (2016). Volunteer science: An online laboratory for experiments in social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(4), 376-396.

Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9, 131.