msalvucci's blog

While sitting down on the bottom step of the staircase, a picture was taken of the spider web in the hole of the stair railing. A UMass ID card was placed right beneath the spider web to act as a scale for the web size. The IPhone camera was tilted upwards so that the background of the picture was a green tree; this dark background created great contrast that could be manipulated to make the spider web show up, despite it being bright outside. After a picture was taken that captured the small spider web, another photo was taken 10 steps backwards from the Lewis Hall main entrance. This picture was angled slightly to the right, so that the Lewis entrance sign was at the top left of the picture, and the stairs and right side railing were at the bottom left of the picture. This picture would be used to understand where the spiderweb was located.

Upon comparing the two figure panels, multiple differences in the photographs became apparent. For the replicated figure B, the photograph shows more of the right side of the stair railing. The angle at which the stairs are photographed is slightly more straight-on than in the original photograph. This suggests that the picture was taken a different angle than the original image. Another observed difference is in the replicated figure C. The photograph shows a thumb, as well as more of the background behind the spiderweb. The UMass ID card also appears to be smaller in the replicated image. From this difference, it is inferred that the photograph was taken from farther away in the replicate photo, thus, showing part of the student’s hands and more of the background behind the spiderweb.

Multiple differences in the image lighting were observed between the two figure panels. In the replicated figure B, the tree and staircase has shadow lines and sunlight beams throughout the picture, whereas the original photo shows no shadows. Figure B is also has more vibrant, saturated colors throughout the photograph, unlike the original photo which looks more dull. The factor that is most likely creating these differences would be the time of day that these pictures were taken. The sun is highly noticeable in the replicated figure panel, whereas the sun in the original pictures looks less harsh. The weather also could be a factor affecting the picture quality, as the original pictures were taken on an overcast, cloudy day. The exposure of the lighting   The replicated figure C, has a darker look to it. The tree in the background looks dark and shadowed, and the rest of the background to the right of the tree is extremely bright. This is most likely due to the camera exposure and focus.

Researchers find it really difficult to identify how emotions developed throughout evolution. It was initially theorized that emotions were learned throughout development, and they were not innate feelings. This means that once stimuli connected an experience with a feeling, they were paired together and created an emotion towards a specific situation. To test these theories, a 9-month old patient in a study was tasked with playing with different objects. These objects included fluffy animals, masks, dolls and more. The patient played with these animals and expressed no distinct or obvious emotion towards any specific object. This disconnect was called the neutral stimuli; the patient did not connect any object to a specific feeling. For the second round, the baby was exposed to a loud noise. As predicted, the loud noise startled the patient and they began to cry. This stimulus is unconditioned because the patient was not exposed to it before, but still was frightened by it. To tie the two together, now the patient was exposed to the same objects accompanied by a loud noise. When the baby reached out for one the objects that initially didn’t scare him, a loud noise would go off, and the baby would be frightened. This taught the baby to associate the loud scary noise with the harmless animal. This indicates how humans can learn emotion through association.

After the methods were created by each student, they were randomly assigned to another classmate by Professor Brewer. Each student was asked to follow the new methods written by the classmate and create a figure of the spider web that they found. This part of the experiment resembled replication, as the students were tasked with redo the experiment to ultimately judge how concise and helpful the classmates method’s were. The students then observed the two figures of the same spider web and identified the differences between them.

The purpose of this experiment was to practice scientific writing through drafting the experimental methods and formatting figures. There were many factors identified that needed to be controlled in order to replicate the figures correctly. Some factors identified in the experiment included the exposure to sunlight, time of day, and weather. These affected the picture quality and color. The distance from the spiderweb and the camera angles were also factors that needed to be accounted for. These scaling factor was controlled by using some type of apparatus to measure the spiderweb in the picture.

The ability to replicate research is necessary in the scientific method as it allows for the validation of experimental findings. With replication research, one can further negate or question the results; this helps connect the research to real world situations. The methods of an experiment are the most important aspect in replicating an experiment, as they they outline the steps taken to reach an outcome. The learning goal in Writing in Biology class is to practice writing clear and concise methods in scientific structure.

In this experiment, students were asked to individually find one spider web somewhere on the UMass Amherst campus and photograph it. Two pictures were taken of the spider web; one picture of the spider web close up and another picture from far away to capture part of the location that the spider web was found in. These photographs were then imported onto a computer and edited into a figure panel that consisted of both pictures of the spiderweb and a third picture of a map indicating the spider web location. Following the figure panel, methods were written explaining the exact steps taken to arrive at the location photographed. Additionally, methods were written explaining the process of making the figure panel on the computer.  

Classical conditioning occurs when stimuli that control reflexive behavior are paired together. Pavlov, the scientist that discovered this concept, came across this finding during his unrelated experiment with salivary glands. Although he was not a psychologist, this was a major finding that affected many aspects of physiology and psychology. His experiment consisted of quantifying saliva from a dog under conditions of food being in front of them or no food being in front of them. As he understood that the salivary glands involuntarily produce more saliva when a dog sees food in front of them, it came to his surprise when the salivary glands of the dogs started working without food in front of them. He came to realize that the dogs were anticipating food, so since they understood from repetition that sitting in the lab with Pavlov meant eating food, their salivary glands would produce saliva before the food was even brought out. This confused Pavlov at first; after more research he came to the conclusion that the neutral and conditioned stimuli paired together, thus creating the term ‘classical conditioning’. These stimuli can be innate and automatic, meaning that they happen spontaneously and do not need to be learned. This explains why human bodies can anticipate a reaction; for example, humans scrunch up when next to a person blowing up a balloon. They don’t know that the balloon will pop, but from past experience their body has learned to automatically react in a tense way. These concepts all fall under classical conditioning. 

One of the most important concepts of eyesight is depth perception. Depth perception is what allows humans to distinguish 3-D objects from one another, and is what has helped humans evolve through time. In order to understand depth perception and how it develops in humans at a young age, experiments have been created to test this skill. Some tactics used are called ‘visual cliffs’, which are apparatuses that look like cliffs but are actually just small drop-offs. These cliffs cause no harm to the participant. If the participant is able to tell that there is a drop off, then they will avoid the edge of the cliff. However, if participants are unable to see the depth in the drop off, then they will walk on the glass where they would drop off. This experiment is used at different age groups to tell when depth perceptions comes into play throughout development. This experiment was also used to test depth perception of animals, including goats, chicks, dogs, rats, and lambs. The results of this experiment do not explain whether depth perception is a learned or innate skill; only some children walked across the cliff, and others were hesitant or did not at all. However, through other experiments it is evident that children must learn to understand depth perception through their experiences. 

Finding a spider web on the UMass Amherst campus proved to be harder than anticipated. While walking around campus, I made sure to keep an eye out for any crevices or untouched places where a spider web may reside. At 12:00 PM on Thursday, a spider web was located near the Lewis Residential Hall main entrance on Thatcher Road. The stairs to the main entrance had black, barred side rails on either side. While standing on the first step, facing the Lewis House main entrance, a spiderweb was found on the stair railing to my right. This part of the railing was at the bottom of the stairs, where the end of the railing is tucked around itself. This part of the railing made an oval-shaped hole where a person would typically grasp the railing as they first start walking up the stairs. The spider web was tucked underneath the bent part of the railing, in between the oval-shaped hole; the spider web was enclosed on all sides by the railing.

I notice a few major difference between the figure panels. The image panel to the left looks to have distorted pictures; more specifically, the picture in the top left corner. The picture of a flower pot looks a bit flattened, whereas the replicate picture on the right figure panel looks to be cropped correctly. I also notice that the overall color and fade of the figure panels are different. The left figure panel has clear, bright coloring, whereas the right figure panel looks a bit gloomy. This difference is most likely due to the difference in time of day when the figure panels were taken. Additionally, the right figure panel seems to have some shadows over the plant pictures which makes me think that these picture were taken when the sun was going down. The angle at which all the picture were taken in both panels differ; the left figure panel had a more straight on approach to the pictures, and the right figure panel has pictures that are angled to the right of the plant. Lastly, there is an obvious difference between the flower captured in the bottom right hand of each figure panel. The flower looks extremely different in both pictures which makes me infer that these are not the same flowers.

As for the formatting of these panels, the figure set-up looks to be almost spot on. The formatting of each picture looks correct, with no gaps in between the pictures. The order of the pictures, left to right, looks the same as well. However, the number labeling of these pictures differs between the two panels, as the font size in the right panel looks larger than the font in the left panel. Additionally, the overall panel size of the right figure is a bit larger than the left figure; I assume measurements images were not taken carefully.