Flaxseed oil increased how fast I did simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 7+5, 9-4, 3*7). To better measure the effects of fats on my brain, I wanted to find out which problems were most sensitive to flaxseed oil. Then I could hope to create a more sensitive test.
Before looking at the data, I assumed that problems that required more processing — more time — would be more sensitive. But this was not what I found.
First, I compared problems with different functions — plus, minus, and times. (E.g., 5+4 is a plus problem.) Sensitivities:
function….F…..n
plus……..15…..1400
minus…….9…..1400
times……16…..1400
The F values are for the flaxseed/nothing comparison. Greater F = more sensitive. The n values are the number of trials. These results more or less agreed with my preconceptions: times problems were slower than the others.
Then I compared problems based on their correct answers. I divided the problems into groups with roughly equal number of trials. Sensitivities:
answer…F……n
0-3 …..12….1000
4-6……15….700
7-9……..6….900
10-19…..2….900
>19……13….500
This was the surprise: Problems with answers 10-19 contributed almost nothing to the overall sensitivity, while problems with answers on both sides contributed much more. Was typing “1″ the problem? No, problems with the single-digit answer “1″ were no worse than problems with similar one-digit answers.
I redid the analysis omitting problems with answers 10-19 and found more sensitivity to the effects of flaxseed oil — a slightly larger F (or t ) value, even though the number of trials was 20% less. Here is a graph based on the more sensitive analysis:
No important differences from the earlier, less sensitive analysis:
Based on these results I will get rid of the subtraction problems and the problems with answers from 10-19. I haven’t decided whether I will keep the total number of problems the same; I might increase the number (which is now 100 — 100 arithmetic problems per session).
Flaxseed oil increased how fast I did simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 7+5, 9-4, 3*7). To better measure the effects of fats on my brain, I wanted to find out which problems were most sensitive to flaxseed oil. Then I could hope to create a more sensitive test.
Before looking at the data, I assumed that problems that required more processing — more time — would be more sensitive. But this was not what I found.
First, I compared problems with different functions — plus, minus, and times. (E.g., 5+4 is a plus problem.) Sensitivities:
function….F…..n
plus……..15…..1400
minus…….9…..1400
times……16…..1400
The F values are for the flaxseed/nothing comparison. Greater F = more sensitive. The n values are the number of trials. These results more or less agreed with my preconceptions: times problems were slower than the others.
Then I compared problems based on their correct answers. I divided the problems into groups with roughly equal number of trials. Sensitivities:
answer…F……n
0-3 …..12….1000
4-6……15….700
7-9……..6….900
10-19…..2….900
>19……13….500
This was the surprise: Problems with answers 10-19 contributed almost nothing to the overall sensitivity, while problems with answers on both sides contributed much more. Was typing “1″ the problem? No, problems with the single-digit answer “1″ were no worse than problems with similar one-digit answers.
I redid the analysis omitting problems with answers 10-19 and found more sensitivity to the effects of flaxseed oil — a slightly larger F (or t ) value, even though the number of trials was 20% less. Here is a graph based on the more sensitive analysis:
No important differences from the earlier, less sensitive analysis:
Based on these results I will get rid of the subtraction problems and the problems with answers from 10-19. I haven’t decided whether I will keep the total number of problems the same; I might increase the number (which is now 100 — 100 arithmetic problems per session).