case study retrieval

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many participants showed a regular pattern of sleep and EEG recordings?

All 9 participants.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What characterised the deep-sleep and REM EEG patterns?

Deep sleep showed high-voltage, slow EEG activity; REM showed low-voltage, fast EEG activity.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] Did REM sleep occur immediately after sleep onset?

No.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How regularly did REM periods occur throughout the night?

At regular intervals.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the range of time between REM periods?

70-104 minutes.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the average time between REM periods?

92 minutes.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the range of REM-period duration?

3-50 minutes.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the average REM-period duration?

20 minutes.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] When in the night were REM periods longer?

Later in the night.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What usually happened when participants were awakened during REM?

The REM period was generally terminated until the next REM period.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] Out of 17 NREM awakenings within 8 minutes of REM ending, how many dreams were recalled?

5.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] Out of 132 awakenings more than 8 minutes after REM ended, how many dreams were recalled?

6.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How did dream narratives recalled after 30 or 50 minutes compare with those after 15 minutes?

They were not much longer, possibly because very long dreams were harder to remember in full.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What percentage of dream recall followed REM sleep?

80%.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What percentage of dream recall occurred otherwise?

7%.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How accurate were participants at estimating whether they had been dreaming for 5 or 15 minutes?

83% accuracy, except DN, who was 65% accurate.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many awakenings were used for the eye-movement investigation?

35 awakenings from the 9 participants.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many dream reports involved mainly vertical eye movements?

3.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many dream reports involved mainly horizontal eye movements?

1.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many dream reports involved little or no eye movement?

10.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] How many mixed-eye-movement dream reports were there?

21.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What common feature did the 10 little/no-eye-movement dreams have?

The dreamer was watching something at a distance or staring fixedly at an object.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the average correlation coefficient between REM duration and number of words in the dream narrative?

+0.58.

[Dement & Kleitman (1957)] What was the range of individual correlation coefficients?

+0.40 to +0.71.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How many monkeys were initially at the research centre?

135.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How many monkeys had previously participated in prenatal-hormone research?

14.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How many monkeys were babies under 3 months?

39.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How many females and males remained in the relevant pool?

61 females and 21 males.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How many monkeys interacted with toys on more than five occasions and were included in the analysis?

34: 23 females and 11 males.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did most monkeys do when the toys were available?

Most did not interact with the toys at all.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did some monkeys do?

Some interacted for a few seconds.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did very few monkeys do?

Very few interacted much more and for much longer periods.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What toy did male monkeys prefer?

Wheeled toys.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How did male monkeys' plush-toy play compare with females'?

Males played with plush toys less than females.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] Did female monkeys show a consistent toy preference?

No.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] Was there a significant sex difference in wheeled-toy play?

No significant difference.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did the majority of monkeys prefer overall?

Wheeled toys.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] Was there a significant ranking difference between females preferring plush versus wheeled toys?

No.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How long did females play with wheeled toys on average?

1.27 minutes.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How long did males play with wheeled toys on average?

4.76 minutes.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How long did females play with plush toys on average?

1.49 minutes.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] How long did males play with plush toys on average?

0.53 minutes.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What was the standard deviation for males' wheeled-toy play duration?

7.59.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What was the standard deviation for females' wheeled-toy play duration?

2.2.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did the larger male standard deviation suggest?

Greater variation in playtimes among males.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What sex showed greater individual differences in plush-toy play duration?

Females.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] Was there a significant difference for females between time spent with plush and wheeled toys?

No; plush = 1.49 minutes and wheeled = 1.27 minutes.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What correlation was found between social rank and interaction frequency?

A positive correlation for both toy types.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] What did higher-ranking monkeys do?

They interacted more with the toys.

[Hassett et al. (2008)] Among females, what did higher-ranking individuals do with plush toys?

They spent more time interacting with plush toys, but not with wheeled toys.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] How many hours of MBSR exercises did the MBSR group complete on average?

22.6 hours.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What was the standard deviation for hours of MBSR exercise?

6.3 hours.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What did the large standard deviation indicate?

Some participants practised considerably more than others.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What was the average daily mindfulness practice?

27 minutes per day.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Which FFMQ facets improved after MBSR compared with controls?

Acting with awareness, non-judging and observing.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Which FFMQ facets did not improve?

Describing and non-reacting.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Which brain regions showed significant grey-matter increases?

Left hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex, temporoparietal junction and cerebellum.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Was there a significant pre-training difference between the MBSR and control groups?

No.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What did the lack of a pre-training difference suggest about the post-training changes?

They appeared to be due to MBSR rather than pre-existing individual differences.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Was there a significant grey-matter difference in the insulae?

No.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] Was grey-matter change correlated with time spent practising mindfulness?

No.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What did the lack of correlation suggest?

Regularity of practice may be more important than the total time spent practising.

[Hölzel et al. (2011)] What happened to grey matter in the posterior cingulate cortex in the control group?

It showed a distinct decrease.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the average number of correct names written down by the doodling group?

7.8.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the average number for the control group?

7.1.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] How many doodling participants achieved full marks (8/8)?

15/20.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] How many control participants achieved full marks (8/8)?

9/20.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] How many doodling participants made false alarms?

1.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] How many control participants made false alarms?

5.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the average monitoring-performance score for doodlers?

7.7.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the average monitoring-performance score for controls?

6.9.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the memory score for monitored information (names) in the doodling group?

5.1.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was it in the control group?

4.0.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What were the monitored-information false-alarm scores?

0.3 for doodling and 0.4 for control.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the incidental-information memory score (locations) for doodlers?

2.4.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was it for controls?

1.8.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What were the incidental-information false-alarm scores?

0.3 in both groups.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the total recall score out of 16 for doodlers?

7.5.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] What was the total recall score out of 16 for controls?

5.8.

[Andrade et al. (2010)] How much higher was doodlers' total recall?

29% higher.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many HFA/AS adults were in Group 1?

15 male adults.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What was Group 1's mean age?

29.7.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many neurotypical adults were in Group 2?

122.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What was Group 2's mean age?

46.5.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many students were in Group 3?

103: 53 male and 50 female.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What was Group 3's mean age?

20.8.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many IQ-matched controls were in Group 4?

14 males.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What was Group 4's mean age?

28.0.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many items were in the revised Eyes Test?

36.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many items were originally created before four were removed?

40.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many of the 40 items failed the selection criteria?

4.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many judges selected the target words?

8 judges: 4 female and 4 male.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How many judges needed to agree for a target word to be accepted?

At least 5 of 8.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What proportion of the combined Group 2 and 3 responses had to choose the target word?

At least 50%.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] What maximum proportion could choose the same foil?

No more than 25%.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How did Group 1 perform compared with the other groups on the Eyes Test?

Significantly worse.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] Did females score significantly higher than males on the Eyes Test?

No; the difference was insignificant.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] How did Group 1 perform on the AQ compared with Groups 3 and 4?

Significantly worse.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] Which sex scored higher on the AQ?

Males.

[Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)] Was there a correlation between Eyes Test score and IQ?

No.