# 認識實驗設計

> 任務分派：運用撰寫案例論文細部評析報告收集的資訊，嘗試以一篇短文章說明某篇指定論文裡，所包含的各種關鍵變項。

[可重製的研究設計](https://scgeeker.github.io/EXPPSY_Opensci/case.html)

## 關鍵變項

想像研究：安排有規律的讀書計畫能增加考試表現

- <font color=#008000>依變項</font>

> 紀錄單位有合適的測量尺度;可量測的工具；使用量測工具的指引；處理量測資料的預訂規格

例：考試表現

- <font color=#dc0c0c>獨變項</font>

> 能直接導致量測結果發生變化的**可操作因子**。

例：讀書計畫的安排
<!---、試前焦慮感--->

- <font color=#ff8e00>中介變項</font>

> 直接導致量測結果變化的操作因子;獨變項實際發生作用的對象;相關研究的自變項

例：讀書計畫影響臨場注意力，臨場注意力變化影響考試表現。

st=>start: 獨變項
e=>end: 依變項
op=>operation: 中介變項
st->op
op->e

- <font color=#0017ff>調節變項</font>

> 影響量測結果及獨變項操作效用的不可操作因子;相關研究的自變項

例：試前焦慮感影響讀書計畫的達成度，以及考試當天的表現。

digraph hierarchy {
                nodesep=1.0 // increases the separation between nodes
                node [color=Balck,fontname=Courier,shape=box] //All nodes will this shape and colour
                edge [color=Blue, style=line] //All the lines look like this
                調節變項->{獨變項 依變項}
}

- <font color=#FF33FF>控制變項</font> vs. <font color=#8A33FF>混淆變項</font>

> 能影響操作效用與量測結果，不是獨變項的任何變項
> 控制：作用可節制；影響可量測；研究者有意識，**必定會記載於論文**
> 混淆：作用無法節制；影響無法量測；研究者未能意識，**不一定會記載於論文**

例：試題與準備內容的差異

<!---
## 反向解析指定論文的研究問題及假設

節錄三篇論文預先計畫的描述

- Goldberg & Carmichael (2017) Language complexity, belief-consistency, and the evaluation of policies

#### Question

"How does <font color="red">language complexity</font> affect one's <font color="green">favorability towards policy proposals</font> as a function of their <font color="red">prior attitudes about the proposal</font>?"

#### Hypothesis

"We hypothesize a <font color="red">language complexity (simple vs. complex)</font> X <font color="red">preference consistency (consistent vs. inconsistent w/ prior beliefs)</font> interaction. That is, people will judge a preference-consistent policy more favorably when it is simple than when it is complex and will judge a preference-inconsistent policy more favorably when it is complex than when it is simple."

- Przybylski & Weinstein (2019) Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report

#### Question

Would adolescents who spend <font color="green">time playing violent video games</font> exhibit higher <font color="green">level of aggressive behavior</font> compared to who do not?

Is the general aggression model (GAM) right?

Would repeated exposure to violent media increase the accessibility of aggressive thoughts, which in turn increases the probability of aggressive cognitive schema, emotions, and behaviour?

#### Hypothesis

Multiple regression analyses will test the hypothesis that recent <font color="green">violent game play</font> relates positively to <font color="blue">caregiver assessments</font> of <font color="green">aggressive behavior</font>.

- Brown & Strand (2019) “Paying” attention to audiovisual speech: Do incongruent stimuli incur greater costs?

#### Key terms

**Congruent stimuli**: Auditory and visual modalities present the same speech input. Recognition would be better when listeners see and hear the stimuli.

**Incongruent stimuli**: Auditory and visual modalities present different speech inputs.

Funsion/non-Fusion responses:

**Fusion responses** are from the incogruent stimuli illustrated McGurk effect

**<font color ="purple">non-Fusion responses</font>** are from the incogruent stimuli did not illustrate McGurk effect

**<font color ="purple">close-set task</font>** provides a set of finite response options.

**Additional attentional control**: secondary task will cost the attentional resource for the primary task

#### Question

"Whether integrating speech information from two modalities occurs automatically or requires attentional resource?"

"Whether integrating congruent and incongruent audiovidual speech incur different attentional costs?"

#### Hypothesis(https://osf.io/snw5z/)

Exp1: Open-set task. Basic fact ~ Reaction times are slower to incongruent compared to congruent stimuli.

Confirmatory: If participants failed to experience the McGurk effects in the incongruent trials, no diff between incongrent and congruent stimuli occurs in the fusion responses.

Exploratory: Response patterns in fusion vs. non-fusion responses

Exp2: Dual-task paradigm. Slower response times to the secondary task indicated the additional attentional costs.

--->

<!---

> 新冠口服藥臨床試驗新聞：
> 科技新報 2021/11/06 ~ [輝瑞新冠口服藥物 Paxlovid 試驗，大減 89% 重症、死亡風險](https://technews.tw/2021/11/06/pfizer-paxlovid/)
> 風傳媒 2021/11/06 ~ [人類抗疫再添生力軍！抗新冠病毒口服藥「Paxlovid」報到，防重症死亡療效高達9成](https://www.storm.mg/article/4032519)
--->

###### tags: `EXPPSY_Book`