Yes?? This needs to be labeled differently and name the director's included

might include sustainability check bylaws

huh?

Funky

Who?

Whose committee is this?

This is experiment manipulated of variables

within subject factorial design Iv 1: sch or not iv 2: passive someone brushed hand vs active moved fibger and rubber hand moved with

On emain effcet is when they were syncrones

2 by 2 design

DV was the questionnaire if they were tricked by the rubber hand or not

Results: Main effect: synchronous or not Main effect: Tactile or voluntary Interaction: Between IVs of voluntary

across all of the different things they were looking at (owner shift, drift) the only thing that mattered was synchronous - Only main effect of synchronicity - If synchro, it was convincing

Methods: - 40 participants (mean age of 24.5) - All right handed - Fake hand was in visual field, while real hand was hidden - Fake index finger could be raised by the participant via plunger

4 conditions (the big part) - 1 synchronous/ tactile sensation - 2 synchronous/ voluntary movements - 3 asynchronous/ tactile sensation - 4 asynchronous/ voluntary movements

Define terms: - Synchronous (rubber hand and real hand manipulated at the same time - Asynchronous (rubber hand and real hand are NOT manipulated at the same time) -Tactile (stroking with a brush) - Voluntary (participants lifted index finger)

Order of conditions randomized

Procedure: - first was induction phrase (being tricked w/the fake hand) - Motor task (with eyes closed, they had to point with their left hand where their right hand is) - Perceptual task ( looked at a screen w/ red dots, had to determine whether each dot was to the right or left of their right hand) (moved mouse to get dot directly over hand) - Survey (RHI questionnaire, 9 statements (strongly agree to strongly disagree) about subjective experience, 4 statements about ownership of fake hand, 5 control items) - Its about the mean response of the 4 questions to these indicated if they were tricked by the fake hand

Introduction: - Phenomenal intentions (trick the brain into perceiving the body differently

The hypothesis is based in the rubber hand illusion - Tactical sensation (passive method for controlling the body)<br /> - Voluntary motor control (Must have intention for movements)

Proprioceptive drift (feeling that the fake hand is your own)

RHI impacts body image (perceptions toward ones body)<br /> - Using RHI, this study uses more voluntary control to compare to original method

This study has been done before

they define the differences of tactile sensation and voluntary motor control

Predictors instead of IV No design DVs- Homicide and suicide Design is correlational and strategy

Discussion: - Poverty inequality indicates crime, policy should focus on reducing poverty - Don't worry about video games - More research needed on HCI to clarify - Video games = wealth? Video games have beneficial effects - Video games probably scape goat

Results:

Homicide - Data available for 73 nations - Neither video game consumption nor firearm ownership predicted homicide - Homicide was skewed (it wasn't super common of an event) - GINI index (income inequality) remined the most significant indicator of homicide - Video games negatively correlated w/ homicide

Suicide - HCI was the biggest predictor - GINI index and gun ownership did not predict suicide

Methods: - Data collected in 2017 via public records - Variables: homicide, suicide, video game consumption (sales of games per capita), GINI index wealth dispersion aka income inequality), HCI (social mobility potential), firearm ownership (number per country) - SPSS for statistical analysis: had two DVs [criterion] predicts homicide, predicts suicide

Introduction: - Accessibility to guns, influence of video games, economic status, and exposure to violence- which one(s) most linked to crime

Conflicting results in previous literature - First person shooters play a big role? Making people desensitized - Guns- do they increase or decreases crimes? their position is that they increase homicide but decrease lesser crimes, trading one evil for another. - Exposure to violence/crime predicts adult gun ownership - Individually, being aggressive predicts interest in violent video games - In populations- lower violence w/ video game use (weak causal link between the two. - Poverty does seem to predict homicide (violent crime) - thought to be meditated by social isolation & other feelings of desperation associated w/ poverty - Poverty predicts depression & PTSD

No real hypothesis