Analysis Workshop: Measuring What Fades

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned that sensory adaptation is the decline in sensitivity to a stimulus that does not change, like a flashing sign you stop seeing. Psychology only counts that as knowledge once it is measured. In this workshop you turn adaptation into an operational definition, measure it on yourself, put one number on the pattern with the correlation coefficient r, and design the experiment that could test a claim about it. A chatbot then answers questions about your work, and you catch where it goes wrong.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Does your sense of one steady stimulus fade over five minutes, how would you measure that honestly, and what would it take to test a cause?

Before you begin — hypothesis: Before you start the timer, write one sentence in this form: If I rate how noticeable one steady stimulus is every 30 seconds for 5 minutes, then my ratings will ___ because ___.

Workshop data: your-adaptation-ratings

Source: Your own ratings of how noticeable one steady stimulus is, recorded every 30 seconds for 5 minutes in this workshop; no outside file is needed.

• Rows: 11 ratings per run, one every 30 seconds from 0 to 300 seconds; the definition table has 5 rows, and the ratings table has 12 rows, the 11 ratings plus one row for r
• Columns: Seconds since start, and a noticeability rating from 0 to 10

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• Google Sheets (free) or Excel
• A timer, such as a phone or a clock with a second hand
• One steady stimulus you choose: a constant hum such as a fan, a steady scent such as a cup of coffee, or a steady touch such as a watch band
• A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

• operationalize-a-construct
• design-a-correlational-or-experimental-check
• compute-and-interpret-r

Procedure

1. Choose one steady stimulus that will stay the same for five minutes, and sit where nothing else about it will change. Fill in the first scaffold table, your operational definition, before you start: the stimulus, where you sat, the 0-to-10 noticeability scale with its two end labels, and the 30-second schedule. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: The first table is complete before the timer starts.
2. Start the timer. At 0 seconds and then every 30 seconds until 300 seconds, rate how noticeable the stimulus is at that moment and write the rating in the second scaffold table, along with anything that changed in the room. Tool: A timer, such as a phone or a clock with a second hand. Check: Eleven ratings, from 0 seconds to 300 seconds.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Seconds in cell A1 and Rating in cell B1, then type your eleven times in A2 through A12 and your eleven ratings in B2 through B12. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Column A runs 0, 30, 60, and so on up to 300.
4. In an empty cell, type =CORREL(A2:A12,B2:B12) and record the result to two decimals in the last row of the second table. If every rating is the same, the formula shows an error because r cannot be computed when one variable never changes; record that and explain it in your first analysis answer. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: A value between negative 1 and positive 1, or an error message if all eleven ratings match.
5. Select A1 through B12 and insert a scatter chart with seconds across the bottom and rating up the side. Title both axes. Tool: Google Sheets (free) or Excel. Check: Eleven dots, one per rating, that you can describe in words.
6. Fill in the third scaffold table, your experiment design, then answer the analysis questions and run the critique step in Part 6. Tool: A document or notebook for your written answers. Check: Three completed tables, five written answers, and a critique.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot run the five-minute rating, for example if no steady stimulus or spreadsheet is available, or if a sensory or health reason makes the measurement unsuitable for you.

Write the operational definition in the first table for a steady stimulus you know well from memory, such as a refrigerator hum at home. Then use the model data below in place of your own ratings: compute r for the ten pairs with the same CORREL formula, make the scatter chart, and answer the first analysis question about these data. For questions 2 and 3, describe the pattern you would predict for an adaptation run and explain it with sensory adaptation. Complete the design table, the remaining questions, and the critique step. Submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

An illustrative paired dataset this course uses for practicing r, constructed for teaching rather than collected from real students.

Fallback model data

Hours of sleep	Quiz score (of 20)
5	11
6	14
6.5	12
7	15
7	13
7.5	16
8	17
8	14
8.5	18
9	17

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Write the operational definition first, because a construct you have not defined as a procedure is not yet measurable.

Student scaffold table 1

Part of the definition	Your entry
The steady stimulus I chose
Where I sat, and what stayed the same
The rating scale and its two end labels	0 means I do not notice it at all; 10 means it is the most noticeable thing around me
How often I rated	Every 30 seconds from 0 to 300 seconds
What one rating measures, in one sentence

Record each rating as you go, because adaptation is a change over time and the times are what r pairs with the ratings.

Student scaffold table 2

Seconds since start	Noticeability rating (0 to 10)	Anything that changed in the room
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Correlation r (two decimals)

Plan the experiment that could test a cause, because your five-minute run can only show an association.

Student scaffold table 3

Design element	Your plan
The claim being tested	Background noise makes a steady stimulus fade from notice faster
Independent variable (IV) and its two conditions
Dependent variable (DV) and how it is measured
How participants are assigned to conditions
How participants are chosen, and who the results could apply to
One third variable you would hold the same in both conditions
What the result would be allowed to claim

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Report your r to two decimals. Describe its direction and strength in words, and write one sentence that uses the phrase associated with. If r could not be computed, explain why in terms of your ratings.
2. Describe the pattern of your eleven ratings over the five minutes: where the biggest change came, whether the ratings ever rose again, and whether the dots look closer to a straight line or a curve.
3. Explain your result with sensory adaptation. Did the stimulus itself change? Say why your measurement is not an absolute threshold or a difference threshold.
4. Your run is correlational: you measured seconds and ratings but manipulated nothing. Name one third variable, such as attention drifting, boredom, or a change in the room, that could make ratings fall without adaptation, and explain how the experiment in your third table would rule it out.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) If you ran the same five minutes again tomorrow, would you expect the same ratings? Say what that tells you about the reliability of your measure, and whether a reliable measure is automatically valid. (b) Could a 0-to-10 noticeability rating capture your mood or attention instead of your sensitivity to the stimulus? Explain the validity problem and suggest one change that would make the measure more valid.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I rated how noticeable one steady stimulus was every 30 seconds for 5 minutes on a 0-to-10 scale, and I've pasted my completed tables above, including my correlation r between seconds and rating and my plan for an experiment on background noise. Please answer five things in short sentences. First, does my correlation prove that time causes my sensitivity to fall? Second, in my planned experiment, which is the independent variable and which is the dependent variable? Third, if I want my results to apply to all college students, should I use random assignment or random sampling? Fourth, my ratings came out almost the same when I repeated the run, so is my rating scale valid? Fifth, is the general idea that the senses become less sensitive to unchanging stimulation a theory or a hypothesis, and is my prediction that my ratings will fall over five minutes a theory or a hypothesis?

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often say a negative r proves that time, or tired receptors, caused the ratings to fall.
• Chatbots often call the noticeability rating the independent variable because it is the main measure, or call seconds the independent variable in the self-rating run.
• Chatbots often say random assignment is what lets the results apply to all college students.
• Chatbots often say a rating scale that gives the same numbers twice is therefore valid.
• Chatbots often call the student's specific prediction a theory, or use theory and hypothesis as if they meant the same thing.

Write 3–5 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least two places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from your own tables or this week's course definitions.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "My ratings fell steadily over the five minutes and my correlation was strongly negative, which proves that time made my receptors stop working. In my experiment, the noticeability rating is the independent variable and the background noise is the dependent variable. I will randomly assign students to the noise and quiet groups so that my results apply to every college student. When I repeated the run, my ratings came out almost the same, so my rating scale is valid. Sensory adaptation is only a hypothesis, while my prediction that my ratings will fall is a theory." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (cause read from a correlation, the IV and DV swapped, random assignment confused with random sampling, reliability confused with validity, or theory confused with hypothesis), cite the evidence from your tables or the course definitions, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 4 — explain how humans sense and perceive the world and how sleep, dreaming, and psychoactive drugs shape states of consciousness) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All three completed scaffold tables
• Your scatter chart with titled axes, or a labelled sketch of it
• Your hypothesis sentence and written answers to all five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Analysis Workshop report: three completed tables (your operational definition of sensory adaptation, your eleven ratings with r, and an experiment design), a scatter chart with titled axes or a labelled sketch, a hypothesis sentence and written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's answers about your work, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Operational definition of sensory adaptation	The first table names a steady stimulus, the setting held constant, a rating scale with both end labels, and the schedule, and its one-sentence statement says what a single rating measures.	A definition is given, but the stimulus, the scale's end labels, or the schedule is missing or vague.	No operational definition is written.
Data, r, and its interpretation	Eleven ratings or the fallback data are recorded, r is computed and reported to two decimals or its error is explained, the scatter chart or sketch has titled axes, and the interpretation says associated with, gives direction and strength, and names a third variable.	The data and r are present, but the chart, the direction and strength, or the third variable is missing, or the sentence slips into cause.	No ratings or correlation are recorded, or the values are invented.
Experimental design check	The design table puts the manipulated noise condition as the IV and the measured rating as the DV, uses random assignment for the conditions and random sampling for who could be studied, holds a third variable constant, and states what the result could claim.	The design is attempted, but the IV and DV are swapped, or assignment and sampling are confused, or the claim goes beyond the design.	No experiment design is submitted.
Adaptation reasoning and the limitation	Questions 2 to 5 explain the pattern with sensory adaptation, rule out both thresholds, connect the third variable to the experiment, and answer the chosen limitation question with an accurate account of reliability or validity.	Most questions are answered, but adaptation is confused with a threshold, or reliability and validity are blurred, or a reason is missing.	The analysis questions are missing or do not address the measurement.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least two errors are quoted and corrected with evidence from the student's own tables or the course definitions, and one correct point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one error is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.

Quality Gate

• The operational definition is written before any rating is recorded, and it names the stimulus, the scale with both end labels, and the schedule.
• Every rating and the correlation come from your own run and formula, or from the fallback model data, never from memory or a chatbot.
• The scatter chart puts seconds across and rating up, with both axes titled.
• Every sentence about r says associated with and names a third variable; no sentence claims that time causes the ratings to fall.
• The design table names the IV, the DV, random assignment, and random sampling, each in its correct role.
• No statistic, rating, or source is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or the course definitions.