Beats For Life Experiment Hypothesis
The “Beats for life” study provides an individual with results that the environment one surrounds themselves in has a significant impact to his or her heart rate. The neutral environment gave the participants no stimuli. This caused the heart rate slightly increase or decrease by less than 1.00 bpm. It is also possible that the heart rate of the participants had no change. The stressful environment presented multiple stressful and discomforting stimuli. These stimulates caused the heart rate to drastically increase more than 25 bpm. The difference between both environment’s completed means estimated to 45.00 bpm. This is a significant number in the greater sense that the more your heart is pushed in a negative situation, the weaker the
…show more content…
As one could see in the experimental research, the alpha level is 0.01 and the P-value came to be 0.0002. With the Alpha level being higher than the P-value, the null hypothesis is rejected. By accepting the original hypothesis, I would be supporting my hypothesis with my data. I would be agreeing that the sample could be wrong by chance in 0.00002 times. By accepting the hypothesis, I would be agreeing that the mean difference before and after in the neutral environment (1.00 bpm) is way less than and less likely to hurt one’s heart compared to the stressful environment’s mean difference (45.00 bpm). In agreeing to my alternate hypothesis, the world of cardiology would direct more towards seeing if the patient’s heart is being affected from work, home, or other sources for an overall better heart …show more content…
Everything was accurate, sterile, and conducted in the most professional way possible. The only way that the study could have been conducted better is if the sample group of 100 participants could have been increased to possibly 150, 200, or even 300 participants for better accuracy inferencing the population parameter. Additionally, I feel that the experimental study could have been directed in several different ways. For instance, it could have been an experimental lab that measures heart beat in emotions such as excitement, sadness, arousal, and more. The research could have also been completed with the participant in the same manner by Markov, Solonin, and Bojko had completed. In attempting this study, it would be more of a way to either add evidence to support or reject their results. This experimental lab could also work when trying to see how neutral and stressful visuals or auditory stimuli could affect an individual’s heart rate. This experimental research could be taken in many ways for the good of the human race’s delicate and crucial organ, the magnificent heart. All in all, the experimental lab results in “beats for Life” show that an individual's environment can have a significant impact to his or her heart rate in the short term, as well as heart health in the
As one could see in the experimental research, the alpha level is 0.01 and the P-value came to be 0.0002. With the Alpha level being higher than the P-value, the null hypothesis is rejected. By accepting the original hypothesis, I would be supporting my hypothesis with my data. I would be agreeing that the sample could be wrong by chance in 0.00002 times. By accepting the hypothesis, I would be agreeing that the mean difference before and after in the neutral environment (1.00 bpm) is way less than and less likely to hurt one’s heart compared to the stressful environment’s mean difference (45.00 bpm). In agreeing to my alternate hypothesis, the world of cardiology would direct more towards seeing if the patient’s heart is being affected from work, home, or other sources for an overall better heart …show more content…
Everything was accurate, sterile, and conducted in the most professional way possible. The only way that the study could have been conducted better is if the sample group of 100 participants could have been increased to possibly 150, 200, or even 300 participants for better accuracy inferencing the population parameter. Additionally, I feel that the experimental study could have been directed in several different ways. For instance, it could have been an experimental lab that measures heart beat in emotions such as excitement, sadness, arousal, and more. The research could have also been completed with the participant in the same manner by Markov, Solonin, and Bojko had completed. In attempting this study, it would be more of a way to either add evidence to support or reject their results. This experimental lab could also work when trying to see how neutral and stressful visuals or auditory stimuli could affect an individual’s heart rate. This experimental research could be taken in many ways for the good of the human race’s delicate and crucial organ, the magnificent heart. All in all, the experimental lab results in “beats for Life” show that an individual's environment can have a significant impact to his or her heart rate in the short term, as well as heart health in the