Hey Dave,
I have two really complicated questions (I think) that are partly intertwined with eachother and I don’t know if what either of them asks can be implemented in Inquisit.
A quick description of my experiment:
I have four phases:
1.Normal learning phase in which participants are presented with roughly 60 out of 100 picture stimuli of drawn objects (exact image number still has to be decided).
2.Second learning phase: 40 videos of the previous 60 pictures will be shown again. 20 of the videos will have property A (run forwards) whereas the other 20 will have property B (run backwards). The properties are already part of the videos so they are ready to be implemented as they are.
3.Distractor task
4.Recognition phase, sporting all the 60 pictures from the first phase + 40 unseen stimuli (distractors).
My first question refers to phases 1 and 2. Before the experiment starts I need Inquisit to divide my stimuli (say 100) into 40 distractor elements (phase 4), 20 phase-1-but-not-phase2 stimuli, 20 phase1and-2-video-A and 20 phase1-and-2-video-B stimuli. Of course no element should appear on two lists. Ideally one list would start picking, leaving a reduced list for the next to pick from and so forth.
However my problem is this: each stimulus must be linked with the two corresponding videos. The video of its creation (drawing process) and destruction (reversal of the drawing process) and this link is constant as it obviously wouldn’t make sense to have the drawing/reversal process paired with a wrong object.
Is it possible to create this fixed link for each stimulus with both video A and B?
After that, I’m not quite sure how the selection process for the items (phase 1, 2 and 4) should look like though because this seems to be relatively layered for me:
1.I assume we’ll have 1 entity (list?) linking all stimuli with videos A, 1 entity linking all the stimuli with videos B and one general list for all the stimuli
2.Then from those entities lists will be generated that divide the stimuli into either distractor, exhibit 1, exhibit2 or exhibit 3.
My first idea of drawing the items was that Inquisit draws 20 stimuli from the video-link list A, then 20 of the video-link list B, 20 of the normal list for exhibition and the 40 more from the same list as distractor. However if I draw items from three different pools then I don’t know how to make sure that they don’t overlap.
My second guess is to have those video lists be “inactive” in the beginning and that Inquisit draws the sets from one normal object list, ensuring that there are no double occupancies. Then those temporary “to be video” sets of 20 items each would be linked back to the constant video lists so that at the given point of the experiment those 20-item lists draw the videos from the video “motherpools”.
Is something like this even possible?
----
My second question will make the issue even more complicated but if that one can’t be implemented my experiment can at least still run regardless, so it’s not completely mandatory for me (would be nice for extra for the sake of experimental exactitude). (If the first question can't be resolved I have a problem though.)
I would also like to ensure that the frequency of stimuli appearing in each condition (exhibition 1,2,3 and distraction) is even over the course of the whole study (all participants) and not have some stimuli be in one condition disproportionally often whereas some others hardly appear in other categories.
Is it possible to have a counter that “remembers” which stimulus has been in which condition for, say, participant 1, incorporates this information into Inquisit’s selection process for participant 2 (e.g. object 1, being in video condition A for subject 1, doesn’t end up in the same condition for subject 2) and so forth and after 5 participants each (given 100 stimuli) it resets itself?
(This would mean that some of the distractor stimuli will have to appear twice because there are 40 of those and not 20. That’s inevitable but doesn’t matter as much, if each stimulus is at least once on the distractor list and only once on theother lists.)
I fear that it is not possible to program something that remembers and transfers information between participants or at least I can’t think of a way but I wanted to give it a shot either way.
Sorry for the extensive length.
Thank you very much for your time and have a good day
Smaug