The Delegation of Processes and Lateralization
The delegation of processes to some regions of the human brain is represented by lateralization. The right hemisphere of the human brain, for instance, is responsible for spatial information processing, while the left hemisphere is engaged in language processing, perception, and development. In relation to facial recognition, the purpose of the experimental activities was to establish how spatial perception functions.
Part Approaches
We carried out two activities, Activity A and Activity B, to evaluate the spatial processing relating to facial recognition. The lab exercises included 22 pupils. Various pairs of chimeric faces were the components used in the two operations. The chimeric face refers to a singular face composed of two distinct facial expressions.
In the first activity, there were 16 pairs of chimeric faces and each was to be viewed for only 2.5 seconds and then determine which face was happier from top to bottom. A fixation point was determined to ensure that we were viewing the correct part of the chimeric face. To determine which face was happier, we moved our gazes between the lines and the two red dots. After the observations, we recorded the answers on our score sheets.
For activity B, we were provided with 16 pairs of chimerical faces were displayed. Each pair was displayed for only 2.5 seconds. For each pair of the faces, we were required to choose the face that looked angrier from top to bottom. Using the fixation point that had two red dots and a line, we viewed the faces and identified which was angrier. After making observations, we recorded the answers on our score sheets. After the activities, we collected the data from 22 participants. We analyzed the data by comparing the sets of data. Only students from the 22 participants had a positive lateralization quotient for activity B.
Extracting Information from Scientific Literature
Several improvements can be made to the experiment on identifying the happier and angrier faces among the chimeric faces provided. The experiment lacked adequate information on the participants. The only information available was the number of participants (22) and the group to which they belong (students). In future experiments, the information on the participants should be adequate including their demographic characteristics. Besides, information about the recruitment of participants and the incentives offered should be available. The full information of the participants enables the reader to replicate the experiment to determine the validity and reliability of the findings (Cargill & O'Connor, 2013).
Another area to be improved on is the materials and apparatus. There were minimal details on the materials. In the future experiments, include the description of stimuli, anchor points along with descriptions to improve the reliability of the experiment.
The design and procedures sections also need improvement. The subsection should clearly describe how the investigations were conducted. The number of materials needs to be adequate. In the lab activity 2, there were 16 items for the 22 participants implying the students were viewing the items one at a time. Increasing the materials will save on time and improve the quality of the findings (Cargill & O'Connor, 2013).
Lastly, the time for the viewing of the items should be adequate. In the lab activity 2, the students only viewed each item for 2.5 seconds, and this affects the validity of the experiment. Sufficient time ensures that the participants observe all the details in the variables and this increases the reliability, quality, and accuracy of the findings. Conclusively, the above suggestions will increase the ability of the experiment to measure the effect.
References
Cargill, M., & O'Connor, P. (2013). Writing scientific research articles: strategy and steps. John Wiley & Sons.
