Week 8: Clarity, Correlations, and (No More) Caps!!!

Welcome to Week 8! I can finally say the words I’ve been waiting weeks to say: the sensors are stored, and the EEG cap has officially been taken off of my final participants!

That’s right! I have officially completed my last rounds of testing!

After weeks of scheduling bottlenecks, crossing this landmark feels amazing. But as one chapter closes, another one is opened. Now that the data is fully collected, it’s time to finish figuring out exactly what it all means.

The Reality of Research (and Noisy Trials)
Before diving into the findings, I have to accept a harsh truth of life science research: not every trial is a winner. While the EEG data collected well overall, a few trials ended up being incredibly noisy. Despite my best efforts to control the physical environment, biological data is just messy, and a couple of these sessions will probably end up being unusable. But fret not (thank you for your care), that is completely normal in this field, and I finally have enough volume that I don’t have to panic over a few discarded files.

Proficiency, Protocols, and the Participant Perspective
So, what are the actual results? Right now, at least based on the Stroop test results, I would classify them as “slightly inconclusive.” However, I am seeing a slight tangible correlation between evaluative stress and blips in testing proficiency. To put it simply: the “threat” of evaluation did seem to trip up some participants’ cognitive performance. It was very affirming to hear one of my final participants actually verbalize this exact phenomenon after their session, confirming that the pressure of being graded—with the “simulated result”—made them stumble while testing. Having qualitative feedback align perfectly with my quantitative hypothesis was an incredibly validating moment.

Furthermore, I made a few protocol shifts this week that paid off tremendously. By tweaking how the tasks were administered, I was able to get clearer, sharper results from the Stroop evaluation (the specific cognitive task my participants had to complete).

The CNV Chase
I am still working to isolate and detect Contingent Negative Variation (CNV) within my data. With the raw EEG data looking solid, I’m optimistic my software pipeline will help extract it, but otherwise, I’ll have to work around it.

Looking at the post-experiment surveys, the self-reported anxiety levels from the participants are highly variable. As I mentioned last week, the overall trend is still on the lower side, but the diversity (even slight) of the responses is a positive sign of an effective testing situation. A wider spread of anxiety levels gives me a much better spectrum to plot against my cognitive performance data!

Looking Ahead
As I step into my penultimate week (I’ve been waiting to use that word), my calendar is finally completely clear of testing appointments (phew!). From here on out, it is 100% data analysis, drafting my formal research paper, and beginning to translate these complex findings into my Practical Toolkit for Educators and Students.

We’re almost there and the end of my race is well within sight.

Thanks for following along,
– Josh Peter