A researcher wonders how well the sense of smell functions during sleep. In general, we know that our sensory systems operate at a higher threshold during sleep. That is, a more intense stimulus is required to elicit a response during sleep than during wakefulness. Furthermore, we are less responsive during some stages of sleep than during others. Experiments using sounds suggest that we are less responsive during stages 3 and 4 sleep (deep sleep) than during stages 1, 2, or REM sleep (lighter sleep). Thus, the 4 – 16 researcher predicts that research participants will be less responsive to odors during stages 3 and 4 sleep than during the other stages of sleep. The researcher devises a system for delivering odors while college students sleep in the laboratory. Peppermint fragrance is delivered at specific times through a modified oxygen mask that the students wear while they sleep. Electrodes are attached to each student’s scalp, face, and chin to determine sleep staging. Electrodes are also attached to each student’s chest to record heart rate. A change in heart rate following presentation of the odor is used to indicate that the participant detected the odor.
Instructions:
Read the scenario above and answer the following questions:
What is the research hypothesis?
What is the independent variable?
Is the independent variable a qualitative variable or a quantitative variable? Explain.
Why might the researchers want to use multiple dependent variables?
Describe one limitation of this study.
ndemn non-willful PE. In any case, I accept the rule of value goes further. As expressed by John D. Arras, it additionally suggests a “grave obligation to ease agony and enduring at whatever point conceivable” (636). Obviously, pundits may frequently be correct—protecting life normally does this. It doesn’t do as such for each situation, however: “for some, patients close to death, keeping up an incredible nature, staying away from extraordinary affliction, [and] looking after poise… exceed only expanding one’s life.” In these cases, at that point, the idea of losing nobility drives a patient to conclude that “the most ideal life for the person in question with treatment is of adequately low quality that it is more terrible than no further life by any stretch of the imagination” (Brock 614). Subsequently, if the craving gets sufficient, this choice is come to self-governingly, and further treatment is resolved to not likely improve the patient’s express, the guideline of helpfulness would acknowledge this personal satisfaction appraisal, and not power a patient to broaden their affliction if it’s not worth living through. This aides ethically legitimize PE and presses the doctor to act as needs be.
Generally significant with regards to non-willful PE is the way that patients who can’t offer agree to PE may likewise have had this longing, yet have just lost the capacity to convey it. I trust it should even now be regarded in these cases. For instance, in the 1990 instance of Nancy Cruzan, who was left in a persevering vegetative state (like a trance like state) after an auto crash, the guardians asked the emergency clinic to disengage her life support following three years—expressing that she would not have needed to be kept alive right now. As it were, the guardians were referencing this craving to hold poise. The guardians realized Nancy amazingly well, and for a mind-blowing duration had the option to increase some knowledge into what she would think about a passing with nobility. With this as proof, they had the option to persuade the medical clinic to expel the existence support, which I accept was an ethically allowable activity, given the accentuation on Nancy’s wants. In any case, right now is an a lot more serious danger of maltreatment than in willful PE. PE would unquestionably be improper for the situation where a patient’s concept of a passing with poise rejects killing. Hence, I accept som