Approved!

The amendment has finally been approved! It took longer than we expected so we had to cancel the first two days of data collection but I finally got the opportunity to collect data for the first time on Thursday. 

The process was surprisingly easier and more streamlined than expected. It takes about no more than a minute to turn on the computer and set up the reverse digit span task. All it takes is adding the task to the launch chain and typing in ACPr with the participants number. ACPr stands for acute pre because we are looking at the acute effects of exercise. For the post task we would type in ACPo to distinguish the pre and post data sets. Before I gave them the task to do, we told the participants about the change in the consent forms and had them sign the new edits. Then we had them complete the reverse digit span task. They seemed to do very well and that is most likely due to them having taken the task many times last semester. 

Once they were done, they went upstairs for the exercise session. The exercise session actually ended up being 40 minutes instead of 60 like we previously thought. Once they were done, they came back and took the task one more time. 

While I can't say anything conclusively, the participants seemed to finish the task somewhat quicker than before which ties into previous findings of other studies. The other similar studies that I have recently read about all found that the reaction time to other working memory tasks (such as the Stenberg working memory task) decreased significantly. One of the studies found a slight significant decrease in accuracy of the tasks. It will be important to keep these findings in mind while analyzing the data at the end of the data collection because I originally planned on just looking at accuracy; however, there could be considerable improvements in speed and not just accuracy. 

Our data collection was cancelled on Sunday so I only have this Tuesday and Thursday to collect data before I will have it all and be ready to analyze. I look forward to continuing my work on my final presentation which I recently started and being ready to adding my results to it by the end of next week.

Still waiting...

So at the lab meeting on Friday the 7th, Dr. Birkett unfortunately informed me that the IRB still hasn't approved our revisions so we would not be able to start data collection that Sunday. At that point we anticipated that the revisions would be approved by the next data collection day, Tuesday the 11th. So after the lab meeting was over Ashley quickly trained me and other participating NAU students how to start up and run the PEBL program.


The process of running the digit span test is very short and simple which is fascinating considering all of the data you get back in an organized spreadsheet afterwards. What is even more fascinating is the list of all the different psychological tests that can be taken or administered on PEBL to measure all sorts of mental abilities. I have been excited to finally get started and use PEBL to collect some data to start looking at trends.


However, I was just emailed today by Dr. Birkett that our amendment still hasn't been approved. She already rescheduled the participants for other days. I am crossing my fingers that when the IRB finally looks at our rewritten amendment they will approve it and we can get started as soon as possible. For now, I will start working on my presentation soon and do more research to into similar studies.

Fortunate Timing

After Friday's lab meeting I discussed the IRB's response to our amendment. There were 4 overall issues with the amendment that were brought up by the IRB that needed to be either clarified or changed.


The first two were pretty straightforward and easy. One asked for a change to the consent from to reflect me joining data collection. The other asked whether or not we would conduct the short term data collection on the control group.


The other two were a little bit more tricky. One of them asked about two adults supervising me while I would collect data and what their qualifications are. We discussed this amendment over for a bit and tried to figure out who could be there to watch me. I glanced over at the last issue and it asked for a consent from parents "for their 'minor' child's engagement in research." The word minor suddenly made me realize that they were asking for adult supervision because they thought I'm under 18. At the time that we submitted the amendment I was a minor but I happened to have turned 18 about 3 days ago!


I told Dr. Birkett and she said that now I won't have to deal with getting a consent form signed by my parents and we won't need to find two adults to supervise me anymore. She plans on calling the IRB to confirm and it should all be sorted out by next week.


I plan on learning how to use PEBL from Ashley within the next few days so I can be ready for my first data collection next Sunday the 9th. We also looked ahead and planned data collection on the 11th, 13th, 16th, 18th, and 20th of April. I expect to be able to collect data on almost all these days so I should have all of my data about 2.5 weeks before my final project presentation.

IRB Amendment

The last week or so has consisted of writing up the IRB amendment and finalizing it. I just finished up the corrections and sent in the final draft to Dr. Birkett to send to the IRB. Hopefully it will be approved soon and I will be able to start the research after spring break.


The actual writing of the amendment was pretty different than I imagined. First off, I only had to write about two simple things. I first had to summarize the requested changes to the study and then I had to provide the rationale for the changes.


It was surprising that it only took a short paragraph for each part. Equally surprising was how the response didn't have to be very formal. The first part actually said, "Summarize all requested changes in lay language," which meant just a casual explanation without extensive scientific vocabulary was needed.


It didn't take very long to write up the amendment that explained how I was joining the study and how my short-term data collection would differ from the already established long-term data collection. The corrections made by Dr. Birkett were straightforward and didn't take very long to add in.


With some luck, the approval should be just as quick and I should be finally starting research after the break as I have finished the other preliminary steps. Optimistically speaking, the next time I post, it should be about how the data collection has started and what the early set of data suggests.

Finishing Up Ethics Training

This week's blog post is coming in a little bit late because I wanted to finish up my ethics training before I posted. I'm excited to say that I've finally finished the exhaustive course and I can finally move on by writing up an IRB amendment and getting that approved. In addition, I will be soon getting some training with the PEBL program from Ashley, a graduate student that is involved in the study. The exercise program should be starting soon which is also exciting because I will soon be collected data and analyzing it which is a little bit more interesting than reading about the legal gibberish of financial conflicts of interest.


It is quite relieving to say that I'm finally done with all of the CITI courses and modules. Every time that I felt like I was making some progress, I would only be slowed down by the growing size of the modules and post-reading quizzes. It seemed like I would never finish.


I talked about it with Dr. Birkett after the lab meeting on Friday because I'm not able to submit the amendment to the IRB without being certified first. She suggested that I try skimming over the modules more and perhaps seeing if my previous knowledge was enough to pass the post-reading quizzes.


I tried these methods and they worked quite well. Skimming helped me read over the overwhelming modules quickly and still score high enough to pass the quizzes. Occasionally I would skip the reading and attempt to pass the quizzes using my previous knowledge and most of time it surprisingly worked!


The last general course topic covered social and behavioral research and for the most part, I was able to complete it quite quickly. It went into depth about the important aspects of research involving human subjects and how they need to be monitored. It talked about the importance of things such as confidentiality, informed consent, and assessing research risks. Much of these topics and ideas were familiar as I learned about very similar ideas in my AP Psychology class. This previous knowledge helped me practically ace the quizzes without having to read much of the accompanying modules. These modules had the longest reading passages of the entire training course so it was great to be able to avoid all that work by using my old psychology-class knowledge.


Over the next few days, I will start working on the IRB amendment and I am hoping to be able to get a rough draft completed quickly. With some luck, I won't need to make many corrections on it and it will be approved by the IRB without any complications. If all goes well, I will be starting on data collection soon!

Before I can get started with the fun stuff...

As much as I want to get started on the study already, there are a few preliminary tasks to complete that have taken up the last two weeks and possibly the next two. The one I have focused most of my attention to so far is my ethics training. I started it briefly back in October but I still had a lot of work to do when I resumed it two weeks ago. It's very essential that I complete the training before I pursue any research.

To start, I need to be certified by the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). It's one of the leading educators of research ethics and other technicalities and it provides certification for the IRB that I can conduct research that is within contemporary, accepted standards. The IRB requires some kind of certification from anyone trying to conduct research because they are responsible to ensure that all research is conducted to the greatest ethical standards. Before I can start my research, I need to prove to the IRB that I understand these standards and can follow them by completing my CITI course. 

The CITI course is very extensive and provides custom courses for all kinds of different research whether it involves studying invertebrates, vertebrates, or people; or executing precise procedures; or even how to get certain aspects of a study approved by different organizations. The first topic I covered was conflicts of interest. The course provided information about all of the legal and scientific complications that can arise from a researcher having one of many conflicts of interest. It went in depth about the specifics about how to avoid these conflicts of interest and how they need to be reported. Overall, it was quite interesting to learn about the many measures that are set in order to make the scientific work as credible as possible. 

The second topic I covered was called investigators, staff and students. It explained all of the technicalities concerning research with animals. It covered how to get procedures approved and how to make studies as ethical as possible while also considering the scientific purpose and method behind many procedures. One of the more interesting topics covered was USDA pain distress categories. These are meant to give a universal categorization of procedures that involve inflicting different amounts of pain on different animals. The sub-course also went into detail about how experiments that have procedures that fall into higher categories get approved and why sometimes it can be important to conduct these kinds of studies. 

Recently, I started the third major topic called responsible conduct of research. This section so far has covered the importance and significance of authorship. It laid out the major problems with authorship today such as the lack of uniformity in how authors are to be listed in many situations. I also learned about what kind of work merits authorship in a published study and what contributions only deserve a place in the acknowledgements section and what responsibilities come from being a part of either. 

After I finish this topic, I will have only one more to complete and I will be certified. It's exciting to know that this certification is valid for up to four years so I won't have to complete this course when I pursue research in college. After I do become certified, I only have to complete a few more tasks such as creating an IRB amendment and I will be ready to start the data collection when the workout classes start in March. 

Introduction to my Project, the Basics of Working Memory, and Digit Span

Welcome to my blog. My name is Adam and I am a senior at Basis Flagstaff. For the next 2-3 months, I will be studying the short-term effects of an hour-long exercise session on working memory or short-term memory with Dr. Birkett PhD of NAU and my Basis advisor and biology teacher, Sheri Jordan.


My interest in psychology started during my sophomore year when I took AP psychology. I primarily took the class because I heard the AP exam was straight forward and relatively easy. Little did I know that I would quickly start to enjoy the class and learning about psychology in general. One of the more interesting topics we covered was memory because of how impressionable and inconsistent it can be.


Fast forward a few years and I have come across the opportunity to study memory and how it can be influenced in a real-world environment. Dr. Birkett originally constructed the study to look at how weekly, hour-long exercise sessions would affect working memory over the course of many weeks. However, I will be studying how exercise affects working memory immediately after a weekly session.


So how can we observe these differences in working memory? Well, there is a psychological test called digit span that can measure just how well a person can use their working memory. To conduct a digit span test, you give the subject sets of one-digit numbers and they attempt to recite them back to you. The first few sets start off with only 3 numbers. If they are recited correctly to a certain degree, the subject can move on to reciting back sets of 4 numbers. As they continue to recite sets correctly, the amount of numbers they have to recite increases. This is where two fundamental rules of working memory come into play.


The first one is the rule of 7 ± 2. It says that our brains can only process between 5 and 9 pieces of information at a time. This number varies based on what kind of information is being processed. It is harder to remember 7 types of fruits or colors than 7 digits. This is true not only because digits are a simpler thing to remember, but also because we tend to group digits. A common example of digit grouping is phone numbers where we group the first 3 digits and the last 4 digits (ex. 778-4433). I experienced this first-hand when I took the digit span test for the first time. I struggled to recite the sets of 8 digits, but successfully recited a set of 9. This is because it's not as hard to remember 3 groups of 3 numbers as opposed to one group of 9.


The second psychological rule is called the serial position effect. It says that we tend to memorize the first and last items in a list more easily than the ones in the middle. The reason why we remember the first items better has to do with what we are subconsciously doing when we are listening to the items being read out. When we are given each additional item to remember, we try to quickly recite the items we have already been given. For example, if I have just heard the 4th number out of 9, I will quickly try to recite the first 4 numbers in my head right before I hear the 5th. While this method works early on when you only have to recall a few numbers, it doesn't work as well when you have to think of the last 7 numbers right before you hear the 8th. Every time that we do these mental recitals we hear the same few numbers from the start of the list in our head and this solidifies them in our memory. The last items that are given to us are remembered easier simply because they are fresh in our memory. When we analyzed my performance on the digit span, the serial positioning effect was clearly there. The digits that I got wrong in the lists tended to be in the middle of the lists. The graph below illustrates the serial positioning effect in action.

In this example, subjects were given lists of 7 words to memorize. They memorized the first word about 75-80% of the time. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th words were recalled less than 50% of the time. The subjects could recall the last word about 70-75% of the time. 








The best way to conduct a digit span test is by implementing it through a computer program called PEBL. This is because a computer can read out a list of numbers at a consistent rate, volume, and tone of voice whereas a researcher might need to catch their breath between numbers giving the subject more time to recite. It also automatically randomizes the digits so the researcher doesn't need obtain randomized number lists before the study. On top of this, PEBL will organize the data of each trial neatly in a spreadsheet so it can be analyzed immediately after a subject completes the digit span. All the researcher has to do is set variable controls such as how much time is given between the reading of one digit to the next. Once that is done, the same exact test can be given to subjects however many times is needed.


Once I program a digit span test, I will be testing subjects immediately before an exercise session and immediately after. Then I will be comparing the results of the two to see if their performance changed in multiple ways. One of those ways is simply looking at how many lists were successfully memorized. I can also look at how long it took subjects to enter the numbers back into the program in milliseconds and which numbers within a list were entered in wrong to see if serial positioning is affected. PEBL observes the trial in many ways and they can all be looked at to see not only if working memory improves, but also if there is any change in the way subjects use their working memory to memorize the lists such as different uses of grouping.


In addition to the digit span test, I can use the reverse digit span. In this test, subjects are asked to recite the numbers in reverse order. For example, if they are given the digits 9 2 8, they are supposed to enter them back into the program as 8 2 9. The reverse digit span can give us a better idea of how working memory is affected and this is due to the inherent difference between working memory and short-term memory.


As psychologists conducted similar experiments in the past, they realized that short-term memory had a lot to do with how we process information that we are given in a short period of time. As time passed, short-term memory became known as working memory because the name reflects how our brain is processing information instead of just memorizing it. In the case of digit span versus reverse digit span, a regular digit span test only has subjects memorize a list while a reverse digit span has them memorize a list, and then process that list to recall it backwards. It's a task that is more involved and it encapsulates the idea that working memory is about memorizing and processing information in a short period of time.


As I gather more data by implementing the two digit span tests, I can look at how performance improves after a workout. I can also look into how this improvement changes over multiple workout sessions.


For now, I am taking a CITI ethics course to be able to carry out this study. I am also starting on writing an IRB amendment that will allow me to join Dr. Birkett's study once it is approved.


Thank you for reading and joining me as I update my blog every week to tell you about how my senior research project is progressing.