Purpose:
This study uses a protocol that is almost good enough to suffice for a real test. The purpose here is to determine whether I have any skill in detection of extracted kidneys and under the conditions applied here, to determine whether I continue on to a real test. The parameter evaluated in this study is the degree to which I can produce the correct answer as to the location of a kidney randomly placed behind a screen made of cardboard.
Procedure:
Cardboard screen
A screen was manufactured in a matter of minutes. It consists of three lengths of cardboard stacked one beside another in a row. Each cardboard is 54 cm wide, 17 cm tall, and 1 cm thick. Cardboard of these dimensions was already available and that is the reason why it has that size in particular. The three pieces of cardboard of identical dimensions stacked one beside another makes a total width of the screen of 3 x 54 cm = 162 cm. The two junctions between cardboard have been fitted with a strip of opaque paper that is 17 cm tall and a few cm wide and taped along the end of one of the two cardboard in a junction at the back of the screen, so to adequately cover the slight narrow gap between two pieces of cardboard.
Six sheets of Swedish A4 paper were used to make the six zones. 11 cm up from each paper a line was drawn, and the length of cardboard rests along this line. This leaves the remaining approximately 18.5 cm of paper to the back side of the cardboard screen. So, one portion of the paper is in front of the screen, the screen cuts 11 cm up along the paper, and the remaining portion of the paper is behind the screen. The sheets of paper were taped to the desk one beside another and 3 cm apart from one another. With the width of a sheet of paper of 21 cm and the 3 cm gaps between sheets of paper, a portion of the 162 cm cardboard screen remains to the far left and far right of the paper arrangement.
The six sheets of papers are numbered from 1 to 6, starting with 1 to the far left and 6 to the far right when facing the screen. The number of a paper is drawn with a pen both on the portion that is in front of the screen, and also at the back of the screen. I also drew with a blue pen along the borders of each sheet at the front of the screen so that the boundaries of a zone becomes visible against the white desk. The length of cardboard is thick enough to rest on its own and requires nothing to attach it to the desk.
Pictures of the screen and setup will be provided later.
Procedure
One fresh sheep kidney is used for this study. This kidney belongs to the second batch of kidneys purchased and was purchased one day prior to the day the first three trials of this study were conducted. The kidney was in room temperature and out of the fridge for perhaps an hour or a few hours, but time to adjust to room temperature was found to not matter in the earlier study.
A small square was cut out of a plastic bag and the kidney would sit on that piece of plastic for this study. It would allow for the kidney to not sit directly on the paper beneath it and also makes it easy to slide the kidney to a different zone between trials.
A die was not found so I took six playing cards hearts 1 through 6. I shuffle them with their face down and spread them one beside the other in a row with their face down. I leave the room. My participant enters the room. She randomly selects one out of the six cards and finds out the number from 1 to 6. She moves the kidney to the zone with that same number and collects the six cards into one pile (so that I could not have seen which in the row of six she chose, even though I do not know which card was which in the row). The participant leaves the room. I am not supposed to see the participant as she leaves and I enter the room.
I sit a minimum of 100 cm away from the screen. For this test I sat perhaps 150 cm away. 100 cm was still marked along the floor from earlier studies. I have a sheet of paper onto which I can take any notes as I please. I mark the number of the trial and the starting time. For this study, I can take any amount of time that I want and there is no time limit. At the end of a trial I have decided on which of the six spaces behind the screen would hold the kidney. I then note the ending time. For this study I do have feedback in between trials, ie. I am allowed to know after each trial whether I was right or not. Feedback between trials is not included in a real test protocol.
Expectations:
Before conducting this study, I expected to have results that align perfectly with statistical probability. For a 1 in 6 trial I expected to be wrong 5 out of 6 times and correct 1 out of 6 times, as probability predicts. I had no expectations of doing well in this study, although I did have hopes of doing well. I had no expectation of getting results that would be in the upper ranges of probability or beyond probability, since I have no prior experience of "seeing a kidney through cardboard".
If I would have done well or adequately well I would proceed to further enhance the protocol toward a proper test protocol by improving on some of the parameters that still need improvement and hopefully make my way to a real test.
Since this is a study not a test, would I do poorly and have results that fall in the lower regions of probability or if I find myself unable to experience a perception, I would consider what study protocol conditions I might be able to tweak in my favor yet that do not bring changes that would be unacceptable for a test protocol ie. changes in the wrong direction, and then conduct another study with that updated protocol. Or if results or experience are low enough I might end this kidney study and proceed with the investigation as before, on live human subjects.
Comments before the study is performed:
Results:
The first three trials of this study were performed on November 15 2010.
The notation I ended up using in my notes was to write 1 through 6 each on a row. I used three different types of markings:
e for "empty" indicating a perception that the kidney is not there
? for I can not determine whether the kidney is there or not but leaning toward maybe there
x for perception of kidney there.
I would write e, ? or x each time when I perceived one of each and on the row with the number for the zone where I felt it. Here are the markings for the first trial:
|
Trial 1
Perceptions Trial 1 - Medical perception through cardboard screen
| Zone | Perception | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | Correct answer |
| 1 | e e ? e e e ? | _ | _ | e |
| 2 | e ? ? ? ? ? e ? ? | _ | 2nd Choice | x |
| 3 | x x x x x x x x x x x x x | 1st Choice | _ | e |
| 4 | e e e e e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 5 | e ? e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 6 | e e e ? ? ? ? | _ | _ | e |
One kidney was placed in one of six zones behind a cardboard screen.
I had no prior knowledge of where the kidney was.
Its location was randomly determined and arranged by a participant.
Comments Trial 1: The first of the six I eliminated for being the least likely to have the kidney was zone 4. I then eliminated zone 5 as the next least likely zone to have the kidney.
I did a comparison where I compared two zones at a time and marked which of the two feels most likely to have the kidney. The outcome of that was: 1 or 2; 2 more likely. 2 or 3; 2 more likely. 3 or 4; 4 empty 3 more likely. 4 or 5; 5 more likely. 5 or 6; 5 more likely.
The order in which I found the most likely zone in this trial: 4 < 5 < 6 < 1 < 2 < 3.
Trial started: 8:45 PM. Trial ended: 9:10 PM. Trial duration: 25 minutes.
First trial statistics: if 100 people are guessing randomly
| 16.7% | 1st | 16.7% 1st |
| 16.7% | 2nd | 16.7% 2nd |
| 16.7% | w | 66.7% w |
| 16.7% | w | |
| 16.7% | w | |
| 16.7% | w | |
|
|
Trial 2
Perceptions Trial 2 - Medical perception through cardboard screen
| Zone | Perception | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | Correct answer |
| 1 | e e ? e e ? ? ? ? ? e ? e ? e e e | _ | 2nd Choice | x |
| 2 | e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 3 | ? e e e e e ? ? ? ? e e ? ? e ? e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 4 | ? ? ? ? ? ? x ? ? x x x x ? x x ? x ? x | 1st Choice | _ | e |
| 5 | ? e e ? ? e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 6 | e ? ? ? e e e ? e ? e ? e ? e ? e ? ? ? ? ? e | _ | _ | e |
One kidney was placed in one of six zones behind a cardboard screen.
I had no prior knowledge of where the kidney was.
Its location was randomly determined and arranged by a participant.
Comments Trial 2:
I eliminated zones 2 and 5 for being least likely to have the kidney.
I did a comparison where I compared two zones at a time and marked which of the two feels most likely to have the kidney. The outcome of that was:
1 > 3
1 < 4
1 > 6
3 < 4
4 > 6
3 > 6
Producing: 6 < 3 < 1 < 4.
I then did another thorough search on these four and wrote: 1 ? - 3 e - 4 x - 6 e. I answered:
4 > 1 > 3 > 6 > 2 > 5.
Trial started: 9:15 PM. Trial ended: 10:00 PM. Trial duration: 45 minutes.
Second trial statistics: if 100 people are guessing randomly
| 16.7% | 1st | 16.7% 1st |
| 16.7% | 2nd | 16.7% 2nd |
| 16.7% | w | 66.7% w |
| 16.7% | w | |
| 16.7% | w | |
| 16.7% | w | |
|
|
Trial 3
Perceptions Trial 3 - Medical perception through cardboard screen
| Zone | Perception | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | Correct answer |
| 1 | ? e e e e ? e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 2 | ? ? -> ? e e ? e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 3 | ? ? e ? ? e ? ? x x x x x x x x ? ? x x x x x x x x | 1st Choice | _ | x |
| 4 | e e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 5 | e ? e e e e e e e e e e | _ | _ | e |
| 6 | ? e <- ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x x x x e e e e e | _ | 2nd Choice | e |
One kidney was placed in one of six zones behind a cardboard screen.
I had no prior knowledge of where the kidney was.
Its location was randomly determined and arranged by a participant.
Comments Trial 3:
I eliminated one zone at a time. In this trial, but not in the earlier two trials, I allowed myself feedback after each elimination. If I eliminated zone 4 first, I approached the screen and felt behind the screen in zone 4 to see if the kidney was there or not. If there was not a kidney there and the elimination of the zone was correct, it did not end the trial and I then placed a card in the zone in front of the screen to remind myself not to look into this zone anymore. This reduced the work I had to do to continue to narrow down to an answer. I will ask for a future possible test the option to eliminate one zone at a time and to have someone place a marker but with or without feedback.
I eliminated zones in this order: 4, 5, 2, 1, 6. The sequence of where I felt the kidney was most likely was:
3 > 6 > 1 > 2 > 5 > 4.
-> means that I felt that the kidney is in a zone to the right of this zone (larger zone number).
<- means that I felt that the kidney is in a zone to the left of this zone (smaller zone number).
Trial started: 10:05 PM. Trial ended: 10:32 PM. Trial duration: 27 minutes.
|
Comments after the study was performed:
Compared to a kidney detection test on live human subjects (the IIG test and TAM test) I prefer to test myself in this way with extracted kidneys because, at least in this study, I place no time constraints. One trial took 25, 45, and 27 minutes respectively, for a total of 97 minutes for the three trials and an average of 33 minutes per trial.
Outcome:
What was learned from this study?
1. The effort in this study is comparable to the effort done in a test with human subjects.
2. It is a tremendous benefit to not work with human subjects. Here, there is no concern for the well-being of the subjects or the concern of how a human subject might start to give away clues over time. The fact that this setup stays constant over time is a wonderful benefit both for test purposes and for my comfort.
3. Without time restriction, the time I've chosen to spend on a trial ranges from 25 minutes to 45 minutes, and averages 33 minutes. This time-frame is acceptable for a test.
4. I am more comfortable performing these trials in a quiet environment as I have here and without the disturbance of having an audience watching me.
5. The test not involving live humans means fewer distractions. Like I said in the IIG test when an audience member asked me after the test whether I used any body language or such to form my conclusions, I called such things distractions. I am happy to not have distractions such as body language, further proving/suggesting that for my medical perceptions, I do not use body language or other visual clues.
6. More trials are needed beyond these three before any trend could begin to appear.
7. This being a study and not a test, these results are not indicative until I've testet and approved of a protocol. I am testing this protocol and getting used to working with this protocol.
I will continue with the same protocol as here and add additional trials. Later I will determine whether the results are adequate enough to proceed to test design.
This protocol has many strengths. The screen should be adequate and is fully opaque (not see-through). The placement of the kidney in one of the six zones is determined randomly. A person other than me determines the random placement of the kidney and prepares the trial. This participant and myself are never in the same room together during trial setup and conductance.
But this protocol is still not strong enough to suffice as a test protocol, also meaning that any positive results are not as valid as equivalent results would be under a proper test protocol. Some of the issues with this protocol that I still see, are: I still have feedback between trials. And in the third trial I gave myself feedback after each time when I eliminated one zone at a time. (I can not identify other issues with this protocol than that.)
I want to do at least ten trials with this protocol before I either terminate this project or proceed to either another study with improved (more test-like) protocol or conduct even more additional trials under this protocol.
How do I interpret the results? It is too early to say after only three trials.
More trials need to be done before a conclusion will be made. If results become adequately high as a collective then the procedure needs to be analyzed and improved on and an extra sense may be suspected. In this study the screen is opaque, I have no prior knowledge of where the kidney is located, the location is randomized and by another person.
/
RESULTS - ALMOST PROPER PROTOCOL