Canada, Moving Lead to Slacking Blogger

Sorry I have been a lazy blogger.

Here is a photo with several of the graduate students in my lab in Montréal, Canada.

My Family When I Am at Work

Most of the people who helped run the lab this year.

From left, Harsha Gangadharbatla, Brandon Nutting, Nikki Siegrist, Wes Wise, Jessica Freeman, me, Kelli Brown, Justin Keene, Wendy Maxian, and Glenn Cummins.

Wreck 'Em!

News Story on Our Political Ads Research

The local Fox News affiliate came by the lab on Friday to do a story about an article we have appearing in the December 2007 Journal of Advertising.

The research was done with James R. Angelini, of the University of Delaware, and Sungkyoung Lee, of Indiana University.

You can read a news release about the research at the Texas Tech Web site.

Your Heart Tells What Your Brain Knows

One of the academic groups to which I belong, the Society for Psychophysiological Research, started as the Society for Polygraph Research.

It follows that much of the technologies that we use in the lab have some foundation in lie detection.

An important tenet of lie detection is that your body reacts differently depending upon what you know.

Although media portrayals frequently portray lie detection as catching someone telling an untruth, it is more reliable to use the guilty knowledge test.

In this test, an individual is told various aspects of a crime, for example. Some of the details are untrue, and some of the details are things that only someone who had been at the crime scene would know. Thus, if you respond to the proper location of the murder weapon, it suggests that you saw it in that location.

For the first time, my lab is attempting to correlate physiology and memory. I will avoid the details of the experiment here, but we tested memory following presentation of a media-related stimulus. During the memory test, participants heard sound clips that they previously heard during the experiment, and they heard sound clips that they did not hear.

Their job was to say "Yes" they had heard it during the earlier experiment or "No" they hadn't.

We recorded their physiology while they were listening and for several seconds afterward while the screen was black.

We wanted to compare the physiological results based upon their memory performance. Now, I had no idea how much work this would be. Really, it was an insane data analysis. It took forever. There are now more than 12,000 variables in the heart rate data set alone.

In the end, it was worth it, if only for the "cool" value.

The figure above shows a cardiac response curve (CRC) for trials where participants correctly recognized a sound clip (i.e., hits, shown in blue). The second cardiac response curve is for trials where they correctly failed to recognize a clip (i.e., correct rejections, shown in green).

At first, both CRCs show an initial deceleration at the beginning of the trial. This is an orienting reflex elicited by the onset of the trial. However, for the correct rejections, there is sustained cardiac deceleration. We typically associate this sustained deceleration with continued cognitive effort. As your brain tries harder, your heart slows down. Cool, huh?

This makes sense, and it fits with our (and others') model(s) of memory. In a recognition task, you can stop trying as soon as you find a match. That is, when the recognition prime matches a memory, you can confidently feel that you recognized it. Since these trials were correct recognitions, we can assume that the match occurred relatively quickly.

Conversely, when there is no recognition, the brain has to keep trying for matches until you give up. This takes longer, obviously, and should require more cognitive effort. This is the exact picture that we see.

In each case, after we stopped collecting data (which went on for 2 seconds after this figure), participants used a computer mouse to make their recognition decision. Thus, these physiological data precede the recognition decision.

To early lie detectors, these data must seem trivial. Of course there is a difference. To me, however, it is fascinating that your heart beats differently when you recognize something than when you don't.

Advertisers: Trust Scientists, not Their Toys

A photo illustration of our lab at Texas Tech University.

---

Thanks to the many colleagues who pointed out the recent Ad Age article titled, "Hidden Persuasion or Junk Science?"

In the article, Mya Frazier outlines recent techniques by marketing consultants to use the tools of neuroscience and psychophysiology to better understand consumers.

There are a lot of great points in the article, but to me the most important point is about motivation. To dredge up the cliche Watergate-era quotation, "Follow the money."

People such as A.K. Pradeep, founder of Neurofocus, are in business to make money. That's fine. I am all about capitalism. But they are not scientists. The do not follow the facts for the facts' sake. They follow the money. And the money wants a quick solution. And there is no quick solution.

For years, I have been advocating the use of psychophysiological measures. I have attempted to argue against self-report measures. To shorten the case, I have reduced it to, "People lie." This idea is hardly mine alone. It's one that was cultivated in me by a group of like minded scientists.

According to Ad Age, consultants agree with the basic tenet:

"Amid the many vagaries of marketing research, one thing is clear: Consumers lie. About what they want. About what they need. Sometimes they do it purposely. Most often they simply don't seem to realize what they're doing at all. Mr. Pradeep and his peers in the field of neuromarketing say they have the solution."

If people lie, then consultants lie. It logically follows. Trust me.

Although they agree with the basic tenet, they do not agree that it applies to them.

I'm not calling Mr. Pradeep a snake oil salesman. I don't know the man. I have no reason to believe that he's not the most well intentioned consultant ever. But if consumers can lie because "they simply don't seem to realize that they're doing at all," then I see no reason why the same must not be true of marketing consultants, too.

As a scientist, I took entire courses trying to alert me to my biases. I've sat in coffeehouses with colleagues debating the nature of evidence. I really care about how I know what I know.

I know, for example, that it's in my nature to look for evidence that confirms my suspicions. So instead I look for negative evidence, or evidence that shows that I am wrong. This idea dates back hundreds of years and is common to science. It is far less common to industry.

Even looking for negative evidence is not enough. Even then, I am somewhat imprisoned by my own biases. We all are. That's why scientists publish their work in academic journals. To be published in a journal, a piece must be blind peer reviewed by others in the field. That is, our names are stripped off, and similarly trained peers dissect the work. Only then do the ideas see the light of day.

The process has its flaws, sure. But at least our ideas receive some sort of scrutiny. This idea was not lost in the Ad Age article.

"I don't want to trash people doing it, I'm just saying the incentives are such that there's no quality control because none of this data is published in peer-reviewed journals," said Paul J. Zak, the founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies and a professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University. "I think the payoff is pretty low for marketers."

Here's the threat. I know a good deal about advertising. I also know a good deal about cognitive science. I certainly know more about the latter than the average marketing director. And I know that if you hook people up to any of the devices mentioned in the article, you're going to see differences.

The logic is simple:

1. If you can perceive a difference in two stimuli, then that had to be a psychological event. That is, you psychologically perceived a difference.
2. Psychological events tend to "live" in the brain.
3. Finally, if you know there was a difference in the brain, and you go looking for a difference in the brain (or downstream peripheral nervous system), then you will find one.

And if you know something about advertising, you can interpret that difference in a logically consistent way.

But this is nothing more than a glorified focus group. Finding differences is child's play. The hard work is theorizing about the nature of those differences. That's very hard work. Trust me. And I see no incentive for consultants to do the hard work.

There is every incentive to look for any (likely) spurious correlation between data and sales. But there is much less incentive -- especially in the short-term -- to look for reasons why your relationship with an advertised brand might manifest itself in a particular way.

Allow me to give an example. More than two years ago, my lab set about investigating emotional psychophysiological responses to advertised brands. We were inspired by Saatchi & Saatchi CEO Kevin Roberts' ideas about Lovemarks.

We could have taken our show on the road after that initial idea. But we did not. We're scientists. We collected data. We tested some assumptions to try to ensure that we were not just seeing what we wanted to see. Those first data were recently published in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising.

Before those ideas saw the light of day, three advertising scholars had to sign off on them. Now more than two years later, we are submitting the second round of data to the American Academy of Advertising for consideration.

It takes time to get it right. It's much easier to play a hunch. And if you have any idea what you are doing, then hunches often sound correct.

Most of the people mentioned in the article are thinking the right kinds of thoughts. They're doing the right kinds of things. They are just not doing them in the right kind of way. They are not giving the facts due diligence. It is this seemingly fast and loose treatment that makes terms such as "junk science" show up in headlines.

Experiment Running Decimates Blogging

Interesting statistic of the day: There is a strong inverse correlation between hours devoted to preparing and launching an experiment and frequency of Weblog posting.

Lab Is Moving Soon ... To the Basement

It was about this time last year that the Communication and Cognition lab moved to Texas Tech.

Shouldn't it be time to move again?

Yes ... but. We are moving within the next 10 days. But we're staying at Tech. We're moving to a much better -- and quieter -- space in the basement of the mass communications building.

I'm excited about the new space. But not about the move. I toured the new space today, and it will be most excellent.

It'll be a busy year. We have three master's theses to run in addition to whatever studies we run to follow up out glut of data.

Branded: Love and Hate in West Texas

We continue our work into the cognitive processing of brands in the communication and cognition lab. We're just beginning to analyze the data, but in the interim, I thought that I would bring you the most and least loved brands on the South Plains.

Most Loved Brands
1. Disney
2. Google
3. Starbucks
4. Dr Pepper
5. Target (go figure)

Least Loved Brands
28. McDonald's
29. Citibank
30. Abercrombie & Fitch
31. Camel (cigarettes)
32. Marlboro

Most Arousing (Exciting) Brands
1. 20th Century Fox
2. BMW
3. Bacardi
4. Smirnoff
5. Nike

Least Arousing (Exciting) Brands
28. Dell
29. Microsoft
30. Gap
31. Citibank
32. Maxwell House

How Are You Going to Secure the Transducer?

I've been a bit of a slouch posting lately due to the trip to San Francisco (see pictures on Dr. Rob Potter's Web site).

In the interim, I wanted to relay a funny story.

We are in the process of purchasing some new equipment for the psychophysiology lab. Specifically, we're trying to choose between a couple of new measures that I have never used before.

The impetus behind this is a study idea of Wes Wise, a master's student here at Texas Tech. Since Wes knows the study best, I asked him to call Coulbourn Instruments to see what we needed.

Now, Wes is a top notch master's students, and I would clone him if I could (hello, Dolly), but he is new to the psychophysiology game. And the poor guy was felled by the second question:

"How are you going to secure the transducer?" he was asked.

To listen to him explain it still makes me laugh out loud. He mumbles something about the flux capacitor, vaguely mentions armed guards, and generally panics.

I cannot do Wes's sense of humor justice here, obviously. But he forever has a catch phrase in my mind.

Time to Work: ICA Adventure Complete

While at the International Communication Association in San Francisco, we made an outing to a Giants game at AT&T Park. Barry Bonds was 0-for-4.

---

Time to start anew after a refreshing conference in San Francisco.

The Texas Tech contingent represented our new college of mass communications well in my estimation.

More importantly, interactions with colleagues recharged my batteries to write the many papers that need written.

I am excited about research and my lab, and that makes the nightmare flight worth it.

It was especially fun to mix my Indiana past with my current lab members.

Red Raiders on the Golden Gate

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Texas Tech contingent freezes atop the Golden Gate Bridge. Wendy Maxian, me, and Wes Wise.

Weather Hits Just Keep on Comin'

Lightning map courtesy of Vaisala Lightning Explorer.

---

We have exactly three days left to finish this experiment. We need every possible participant.

And the weather keeps killing me.

Above is the current lightning activity in the United States. Note how the entire *$&%ing country is lightning-free.

Except for West Texas. We've got plenty of lightning.

We obviously cannot have participants connected to the physiology equipment during thunderstorms. So we have to let them run through the experiment without the physiological data, which is what I really need.

Ugh.

Television Is Arousing

Ever wonder what happens in your sympathetic nervous system while you watch television?

Above is a plot of the electrical conductivity of one participant's palm while watching two minutes of ER.

Each peak represents a skin conductance response, which reflects activity in the sympathetic nervous system.

And we can measure and plot that activity.

How cool.

Tech, Professionals Enjoy Advertising Conference

Texas Tech doctoral student Wendy Maxian presents our "Lovemarks" paper on April 13 at the American Academy of Advertising annual meeting in Burlington, Vermont.

Wendy did an excellent job, and Tech had a strong showing at AAA.
Here (from left) Wendy Maxian (Tech), Marcie Mutters, Tim Laubacher (both of Buchanan & associates) and I have fun at the Vermont Teddy Bear Factory.

Here I am with my master's advisor, Bob Meeds, of Kansas State University.

Outside the Sheraton as we frantically head out of town trying to dodge the Noreaster snow storm set to arrive 15 minutes after our flight time.

Semester's Third Experiment Finally Running

Well, participant number 2 is running as we speak.

Ugh. Thank goodness for a three-day weekend. I am beat.

Experiment Prep Puts Life on Hold

This is a screen capture from the episode of ER used in the current experiment. It is part of the signal detection recognition memory test.

---

This is my life right now. Insanity. Trying to fit 28 hours into 24 hour days.

Come on, mid-May. I know you'r e just around the corner.

Hanging Out in the New Lab

Photo by Melissa Frazier, College of Mass Communications.

---

We're having fun on the South Plains. Stop by and see us some time.

P.S. Congratulations to Dr. Seungjo Lee, Indiana University's newest Ph.D.

Sundays in the Lab

To really succeed in an academic career, you begin working when everyone else goes home. To climb above the average, you do everything that you are supposed to do, and then you roll up your sleeves and get to work.

This often means working on the weekend. This weekend was no different.

The best part is the company that you keep on the weekend. It's inspiring to be among to motivated.

It's great to see this effort among graduate students. It means they "get it."

I remember many Sunday afternoons on the 6th floor of Eigenmann Hall. The hardest workers were always there.

If you're a graduate student studying mass communications -- or you are thinking of becoming one -- let me offer a word of advice. There's a lot to do during the day. Likely you'll be taking classes and writing more literature reviews than you dreamed possible.

You're probably financing your graduate education by working as a teaching assistant or research assistant. That takes up a lot of time -- sometimes more than the 20 hours for which you are paid.

And you need to have a life on top of all of that.

Many weeks it will seem impossible just to get it all done.

But you cannot stop there.

When all is said and done, you will be judged almost exclusively on what you did above and beyond what is required.

And Sunday afternoons are a good time to do this.

As a professor -- and as a graduate student trying to encourage new graduate students -- it is an interesting position in which to be. You have no real leverage to motivate graduate students to always do more. As a junior scholar you are not likely to have grant funds. You have only advice to give. You say, "this is the way it should be done." And you hope they listen.

And the good ones always do.

So this afternoon, Nikki, Wendy, Wes, and I were in the lab trying to get an experiment ready to go.

Tomorrow morning there will be classes to teach, office hours to hold, and phones to answer. Today was the day to try to brush up on electrode placement, pretest MediaLab experiments, and debug VPM code.

Tomorrow night should mark the final pretest. That is, unless, I get to use the "Murphy's law" label on tomorrow's post.

Experiments Seem to Control Me

One of the primary advantages of experimental design, I told my undergraduate research methods class yesterday, is control. We can control almost everything (as in hold the same, not in the authoritarian kind of way).

The problem for the scientist, then, is that you have to control everything. I am in the midst of a two-week run to get two experiments ready to go. The details are tedious, unending, and not of interest to anyone but me.

The project is all consuming, so I have been unable to muster anything remotely interesting to say here. When the experiments are done, however, there should be many interesting things to say.

Until then, my life is a blur of Adobe Audition, MediaLab, and Macromedia (Adobe) Dreamweaver.

If the TV Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Lab setup continues, although today I almost took a hammer to it all.

Traditionally, I have used a 19-inch flat panel display to show stimulus materials, such as television programs.

Then someone (I forget who, sorry) told me that my old mentors at Indiana were buying a 32-inch flat panel television to make the experience more realistic. Aha, I thought! What a great idea! As an aside, it also would display a wicked robot.

So I am (by proxy of the state of Texas) now the proud owner of a 37-inch Magnavox.

We don't use the TV as a TV. Instead, we feed it digital video from a Dell computer. In order to have our TV content look real on the big screen, picture quality is a must. So we had to buy an expensive high definition digital video (DMI) splitter and gold plated DVI to HDMI cable.

Add to that the fact that we need the experimenter to have a small monitor show the exact same stimulus that the participants see.

This all might be simple if it were not for plug-and-play. The technology keeps trying to outsmart you.

So I got it all hooked up around noon today, and voila! It worked. I changed one setting on the resolution, and both were DVI beautiful.

There was just one problem. If you turned off the TV, the computer monitor went blank, too. Thanks, plug-and-play. And I didn't exactly want to burn out the TV having it on for no reason while we programmed the experiment, backed up data, etc.

So I shut everything off and plugged the monitor into splitter port "1" and plugged the TV into splitter port "2."

I'll spare you the details, but it took me and the IT guy more than 3 hours to undo that little switch. We had to pull the video card, install a VGA monitor, uninstall all of the drivers associated with the card, reinstall the card, plug a monitor directly into the card, reinstall all of the drivers, and then plug the splitter back into the video card (with the TV in its rightful and proper spot as No. 1).

So now I have to use the fool remote control to change the TV's input settings to keep it from being "on" all of the time.

Everything else, however, is working wonderfully.

And yes, I crossed my fingers as I typed that.