Vehicle control. Several measures of vehicle control were recor-ded, including the average and standard deviation of headwaydistance as measured in meters from the bumper of the vehicleahead to the simulator vehicle's bumper.
i am confused on this part. what does measuring the vehicle correlate to the three variables.
The various behavioral and physiological measures wereanalyzed using linear mixed models (LMM) in SPSS 20.0 accordingto the three levels of driving condition. I
the three different levels of driving is some instances equipment was not working so some of the data might me missing
g.,Craik and Lockhart, 1972)
the whole purpose of references and in-text citations in the discussion is to give credit and support to the paper
5. Recognition performance&subjective ratingsRecognition performance. Drivers' recognition of the auditorymaterial showed some pronounced differences across the condi-tions (F(2,63)¼16.1, p<0.001,G2¼0.35). For interesting material,they correctly identified 92.6% of the stimuli presented in the recalltest. In comparison, they were only 63.3% accurate for boring ma-terial. Participants correctly rejected 84.7% of the catch trials (i.e.,stimuli that had not been presented in the study). With respect tothe catch trials, which included both interesting and boring ma-terial, participants were better able to reject unheard material forinteresting (93.3% accuracy) than boring material (78.8%;F(1,29)¼11.8, p¼0.002, Cohen'sd¼0.57).Subjective workload ratings. Analysis of the unweighted com-posite workload score, based on the average of all of the sub-scalesof the modified NASATLX, revealed small but significant differencesacross the conditions (F(2,56)¼6.5, p¼0.003,G2¼0.01), with theBoring condition (M¼45.3) scoring higher workload ratings thanthe Baseline (M¼43.3) and Interesting condition (M¼42.1).Given our interest in perceived performance, we examinedsubjective ratings of driving (car following) performance across theconditions using the performance subscale of the NASA TLX. Theanalysis did not show any differences between the conditions(F(2,56)¼0.59, p¼0.56,G2¼0.003; Baseline¼68.4; Boring¼67.2;Interesting¼66.1).Subjective ratings of task engagement/difficulty. Lastly, we notethat the post-experimental ratings of a subset of the stimuli used inthe study verified our manipulation of interest and also corrobo-rated the outcomes from the pilot study. Participants indicated, on a7-point scale, that they would be more likely to attend to theinteresting material (F(1,29)¼98.3, p<0.001,d¼0.88;Boring¼3.5; Interesting¼5.3) and that the material was moreentertaining (F(1,29)¼120.8, p<0.001,d¼2.1; Boring¼2.7;Interesting¼5.2). Although the material was matched usingobjective measures of difficulty, participants rated the interestingmaterial as being less difficult to understand (F(1,29)¼12.4,p¼0.001,d¼0.39; Boring¼2.0; Interesting¼1.7), although bothconditions were rated as easy to understand
P-value is also used here as well
Table 2
table 2 uses the p-value
The LMM revealed that car following distances were largerwhile listening to interesting material (M¼15.6 m), compared tothe boring (M¼14.9 m) or baseline conditions (M¼14.6 m;F(2,60)¼4.66, p¼0.01, Cohen'sG2¼0.01). Furthermore, thevariability in following distances was reduced for both the boring(M¼3.77 m) and interesting (M¼3.80 m) auditory conditionscompared to baseline (M¼5.90 m; F(2,60)¼83.8, p<0.01,G2¼0.40). With respect to speed control, there was greater vari-ability in vehicle speed in the baseline (M¼6.29 mph) compared tothe boring (M¼4.57 mph) and interesting conditions(M¼4.44 mph; F(2,60)¼376.8, p<0.001,G2¼1.48). Lastly, drivershad significantly more variability in their lane keeping performancein the baseline condition (M¼0.16 m) compared to the boring(M¼0.11 m) and interesting (M¼0.10 m) conditions(F(2,60)¼99.3, p<0.001,G2¼1.12).
inferential statistics is used here is the p-value
Prior to analysis, weremoved unrealistically short response times (<200 m) that likelyrepresented natural braking responses to slow the vehicle asopposed to a reaction to the lead vehicle. Only 5 samples (0.3% ofthe data) were removed as a result. The analysis revealed thatbraking response times were longer for the interesting condition(M¼0.94 s), compared to boring (M¼0.92 s) and baseline con-ditions (M¼0.90 s; F(2,60)¼3.19, p<0.05,G2¼0.02).The turn signal task response time was measured from the onsetof the lead vehicle's turn signal (left or right) until the driver'sresponse was made. Accuracy was the percentage of correct re-sponses on this task. Response times for the turn signal task did notvary across the different conditions (Baseline, M¼1.06 s; Boring:M¼1.07 s; Interesting, M¼1.07 s; F(2,60)¼0.76, p¼0.48,G2¼0.002), nor did signal accuracy, which tended to be high(M¼99% in all conditions; F(2,60)¼0.24, p¼0.79,G2¼0.003)
inferential statistics that was used here was the p-value
toþ7, scored lower for Boring(M¼0.25) than Interesting items (M¼2.35; t(21)¼8.5,p<0.001). Other ratings substantiated these differences;“if youheard this passage, how likely would you attend it”(Boring:M¼3.1; Interesting: M¼6.0, t(21)¼15.7, p<0.001) and“howentertaining was the passage”(Boring: M¼2.6; Interesting:¼5.7,t(21)¼17.7, p<0.001).
this is telling us how they are going to do the inferential statistics
Written material was gathered and modifiedfrom a number of news and online sources and initially classified byinvestigators as being either boring or interesting
in the materials and methods there were no written consent nor verbal consent so it makes it difficult for the readers to know if the human subjects were treated ethically.
Thecurrent study purports to address this knowledge gap, with thespecific aims of examining (1) performance implications of, and (2)physiological and subjective responses to, auditory material thatwas more interesting or engaging than mundane information ofcomparable difficulty.
the researchers are asking the different auditory that was more interesting
The results showed that older women's capacity to produce muscular force decreased after their performance of static stretching exercises. Although it is difficult to compare the results with other studies, given the different joints measured and the different techniques used, one consistent finding is that stretching exercises are effective for enhancing ROM
They compare results here form their previous studies and how their results were different but overall they had a postive effect on enhancing Range of Motion.
In addition, significant differences were found between the control and passive groups (14.95°; p < 0.001) and control and PNF groups (14.20°; p < 0.001) in posttest hip measurements (Table 2). No significant differences were observed between groups in the pretest.
They refers to tables and pictures by using in-text citation as they refers to the tables.
A pretraining-posttraining intervention design was used with 3 equivalent groups: 2 experimental groups (PNF vs. passive) and 1 control group. The experimental groups performed 2 different flexibility training programs for 26 weeks, one using the PNF method and the other using the passive method.
This study is a case control group study because the study compares 2 experimental group which are the passive vs. PNF and looks back retrospectively. The clue that gave it away for me was that case control studies are observational because there is no intervention attempted and no attempt is made to alter the course of the passive group.
It was based on the hypothesis that passive stretching and PNF are both associated with an increase in hip and shoulder flexion and that there are no differences between the stretching methods.
They expected to learn from the experiment through passive stretching and PNF which are both related with an increase in hip and shoulder flexion.
In older people, it is an important variable with respect to both health and athletic performance (1). Mobility problems in older people may lead to falls, which in turn may result in hip fractures. Coaches therefore need to be aware of the most effective and efficient ways of achieving optimal increases in muscle length to improve the health of older people. The Position Stand of the American College of Sports Medicine states, “flexibility exercises should be incorporated into the overall fitness program sufficient to develop and maintain range of movement.
This portion puts the research into the bigger context of with elderly people it is a critical variable as for their wellbeing and their performances. one of the most important factors stems from mobility issues, which leads to the Elderly falling leading to hip fractures. Therefore coaches thusly should know the best methods for accomplishing the ideal "optimal increases in muscle length" to assit the Elderly.