Hello, my name is Xssandra (They/Them), and I’m a neurodivergent independent researcher working to make a meaningful contribution in the areas of Complexity Science, cross-domain synthesis, and Philosophy of Mind. I’ve lurked around LessWrong without participating for a while, to slowly build my understanding and readiness to meet engagement with appreciation and honesty. I am ready to offer my work to the review process of the minds I have come to respect here, while I also believe I have something meaningful to offer in return.
I feel that this is my strongest piece of writing so far (thanks in part to a spark of inspiration for developing a novel rigorous measurement method), so I look forward to engagement of any kind.
Thank you, in advance.
--- ---
Phenomenological Report of Medication Side-Effects:
Evidence for Quantized Conscious Experience in Peripheral Vision
Abstract
This paper presents a first-person phenomenological field report documenting an apparent discrete temporal sampling effect observed in peripheral vision under naturalistic conditions. Following administration of prescribed medication, the researcher-subject observed that moving stimuli (specifically: the researcher-subject’s own thumbs) appeared as discrete, low-frame-rate silhouettes when attended to via lower-periphery vision, while the same stimuli appeared continuous when observed via center-of-focus vision. A preliminary measurement protocol was constructed in situ, yielding an estimated peripheral sampling rate of 12–24 frames per second (6 discrete frames per unidirectional ‘thumb pass’ (defined within) at a pass rate of approximately 2-4 per second). A second experiment concerning auditory interference patterns was initiated during the first experiment. The substantial methodological limitations of both experiments are documented extensively in the attached Confounding Factors disclosure. Despite these limitations, the Author believes the observations warrant further investigation under conditions involving a second person — and additional funding.
I am here to list my personal experiences of subjective feelings, perceptions, and memories and observations of this self-analysis.
For instance, as I am typing this, I am lying comfortably in a dark room with the light of my mobile device providing the only light in the room. I am relaxed and I have just taken my prescribed medication, which seems to have very minor effects on my perception at times. (ie, I feel slightly-less distress from the shocking-pain stimulus triggered by Allodinia — caused by the perceptual whiplash of a light being switched-on WHILE attenuated-to AND while-expecting a dim/dark lighting-environment.)
--- Right now, in Position 1: when my attention is focused on the words I am typing (“THESE — right ‘here’ and ‘Here’.”) as they appear around “the middle” of my screen, WHEN I notice that— in my Lower-Periphery Vision ([LPV]) (which as I understand: is processed somewhat differently than one’s Center-Of-Focus ([COF]) — for-instance, LPV is “better-at ‘noticing’ AND ‘detecting’ ‘snake-like motion’” according to experiment results) that the visual-image of my thumbs appear as silhouettes AND they are moving (whether by typing OR by normal “fluid-like motion”) — they VISUALLY-appear to me as “stop-motion” dark-silhouettes at a “low frame-rate” (in terms of: Animation, Motion-Graphics, Film, Video) that I would estimate “around 12–24 frames per second” (based on a somatically-anchored repetitive movement “routine” at a high-confidence “oscillation-rate” (benchmarked between 1–2 seconds in duration — against the visible Timestamp of the Spotify interface) and “rapidity” (higher = less “pause” between oscillation-direction change (in other words: my thumbs movements “felt consistent between the two ‘Focus Points’” (Focus Points defined-as: Position 1, Position 2. Position 1: [COF] “mid-screen” Position 2: [COF] “thumbs”))) WHILE listening to a song on Spotify AND counting the number of “silhouettes” I see as clearly-defined frames on a single “thumb pass” (defined as: One-directional movement across the field-of-vision — either upward, or downward) of “‘oscillationary movement’” (defined as: “Moving my thumbs up-and-down at a regular-rate of ‘a little-more than one cycle-per-second’. I call it ‘Non-Zero Thumb’” Meaning: One full-cycle “‘oscillationary movement’” involves one upwards-movement, and one downwards-movement, of the Subject’s thumb (which in terms of Subject’s visual perspective: the position of the Subject’s thumb is between their-own face, and the mobile-device screen) WHILE their mobile-device’s screen has a Non-Zero probability of plotting a position between the reader’s-face and “You” (defined as: the parsing apparatus of this Field Report).) which comes out to 12–24 (Equation: (‘thumb pass’ × ‘oscillationary movement’ = FPS (not First Person Shooter, but Frames Per Second)) 6×2=12. To-twenty-four.)
Stated: “6-frames per ‘thumb pass’, 2-‘thumb pass’ per ‘oscillationary movement’, rate of 1–2 ‘oscillationary movement’ per second.”
---
Position 1 Findings
(Eyes directed above thumbs)
Frame-Rate effect present. “I notice it by shifting my awareness to my [LPV].”
---
Position 2 Findings
(Eyes directed behind thumbs)
Frame-Rate effect absent. “It feels like what my eyes point at is a higher-frame-rate, or at least processed differently or at a different bandwidth.”
— Experimenter’s Note: Attempting to ensure “regularity of speed, rate, and pattern” led to acknowledged difficulties in the measurement system AND the unit being measured BEING one-in-the-same. However, due to this being a preliminary field test constructed “on-the-fly” when first-noticing the phenomenon and desiring to capture data about it in some preliminary-way, the researchers have decided to include the extreme-bias of the data, as no-other method could have been employed — while lacking rigorous testing conditions or tools (accelerometer, video-capture, lab assistant, etc (as noted in: Appendix A)) AND while unsure of phenomenon reproducibility outside of current-state. Also: despite acknowledged limitations (including the most-precarious situation in-which: the subject, the experimental examiner, the Principal Investigator, the measuring-device, the recording-device ALL being one-in-the-same).
Investigator’s Note: I agree with the Experimenter’s recommendations for equipment in subsequent—better-funded research.
Researcher’s Note: A second experiment utilizing a SEPARATE dual-sensory channel of a DIFFERENT signal-type was designed WHILE writing AND performing the above experiment (Experiment 1) — one which was inspired by the Principal Investigator sharing a non-verbal account of a immediately-recent personal experience with the Subject of Experiment 1 WHILE the Subject was reporting/writing their phenomenological-account (a MASSIVE breech of standard experimental practice AND of stated methodology design! However—under the circumstances—unavoidable.)
--- Experiment 2 The reported phenomena:
”Audible voice and strange ‘interference pattern’ between the audio of the Left-Channel Earbud and the audio of the Right-Channel Earbud” as-reported by the Subject-Researcher-Investigator occurring between approximately Timestamp: “0:06–0:10” of the track titled: (see [Appendix B: Experiment 2 data — as-reported by Subject of Experiment 1] (see attached “Confounding_Factors” disclaimer)). --- ---
Filed by: The Subject (on behalf of the Researcher, the Experimenter, the Principal Investigator, and the Recording Secretary — all of whom were consulted and all of whom agreed unanimously, as they often do)
The following confounding factors have been identified, acknowledged, and subsequently not controlled for:
1. PERSONNEL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1.0 This document was not created until AFTER it was referred to in the parent document. This is the first Conflict.
1.1 The Subject is also the Principal Investigator.
1.2 The Principal Investigator is also the Experimenter.
1.3 The Experimenter is also the Recording Secretary.
1.4 The Recording Secretary is also the Subject.
1.5 At no point during the study was any individual available to provide oversight of any other individual, as all individuals were occupied being each other.
1.6 A formal complaint was filed (by the Subject) regarding the Experimenter’s conduct during Experiment 1 (see: Section 3.2). The complaint was reviewed by the Principal Investigator, who dismissed it on the grounds that “we’ve all been through a lot today.”
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
2.1 The laboratory environment was a bed.
2.2 The lighting conditions were described by the Experimenter as “whatever my phone is doing.”
2.3 Ambient temperature was not measured but editorially described as “fine.”
2.4 The Subject’s cat entered the testing environment at an undocumented timestamp and was not removed, as the Subject reported feeling “indifferent about it.” The cat’s influence on Experiments 1 and 2 is believed to be negligible but remains formally unquantified.
2.5 A pillow was adjusted beneath the Subject’s head at approximately the midpoint of Experiment 1. The Experimenter did not note the exact time of this intervention because the Experimenter was the one who wanted the pillow.
(Note: The cat did not consent to participation. An IRB exemption was not sought because no IRB exists.)
3. PHARMACOLOGICAL FACTORS
3.1 The Subject had recently taken prescribed medication.
3.2 The effects of said medication on visual perception were described by the Subject as “minor” — a characterization the Principal Investigator accepted without challenge, as the Principal Investigator had also recently taken the same medication, and opined: “No Conflict, due to the Conflict being the subject of study.” The Experimenter subsequently asked for silence during the session, which the Subject took offense to and immediately declared intent to file “a complaint or report you or something.” (As of the publication of this document: no report has been filed.)
3.3 No placebo control was administered. The Subject was aware of this and described the omission as “obvious.”
3.4 Caffeine status: unrecorded. Estimated by the Experimenter as “Non-Zero.”
4. MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
4.1 The primary measurement device was the Subject’s thumbs.
4.2 The secondary measurement device was the Subject’s eyes.
4.3 The tertiary measurement device was the Subject’s sense of elapsed time, benchmarked against a Spotify timestamp that the Subject could not look at directly without compromising the visual task being measured.
4.4 The quaternary measurement device was “intuition.”
4.5 Calibration of the above instruments was not performed, as no independent reference standard for “how fast thumbs go” could be located at the time of testing.
5. EXPERIMENTER BIAS
5.1 The Experimenter wanted the results to be measurable and well-defined, so personal costs were paid by the Experimenter in the absence of grant-funded equipment, while denying this expense being paid as favor to the Principle Investigator—despite their personal relationship. This may present a motivating bias in documentation of the results of Experiment 1 & 2.
5.2 The Subject also had personal stake in the integrity of the results.
5.3 These desires were not independent (see: Sections 1.1–1.4).
5.4 At one point, the Subject described a visual phenomenon as “definitely real and not just me wanting it to be real,” which the Experimenter recorded without comment.
6. PROTOCOL DEVIATIONS
6.1 Experiment 2 was designed during Experiment 1.
6.2 The inspiration for Experiment 2 came from the Principal Investigator sharing an immediately-recent personal experience with the Subject of Experiment 1 during data collection — a deviation the methodology document (this document’s parent) describes as “a MASSIVE breech of standard experimental practice.”
6.3 The methodology document contains a spelling error in the word “breach,” which the Recording Secretary has opted to preserve in the historical record as an additional data point about conditions at time of writing, and to demonstrate dedication to rigor.
6.4 The Subject took a break of unknown duration to pet the cat (see: Section 2.4). It is unclear whether this occurred between experiments or during one.
6.5 Music was playing throughout both experiments. The song changed at least once. This was not planned, and likely occurred at the precise moment at which the Principal Investigator realized that the previous song hand ended while they were doing “silent” math in-their head, OVER the Experimenter’s shoulder, compounding the distractive potential of the Principle Investigator’s “vibe”. This was the same moment in which the Principal Investigator began sharing a non-verbal personal anecdote with the Subject.
7. STATISTICAL CONCERNS
7.1 Sample size: n=1 (or n=5, depending on how you count).
7.2 No power analysis was conducted.
7.3 No analysis of any kind was conducted.
7.4 The reported figures (12–24 FPS, 6–10 Timestamp) represent the Subject’s best guess, produced under conditions fully described by Sections 1 through 6 of this document.
7.5 Error bars: not applicable, as there is nothing to put them on.
7.6 Reproducibility: The team acknowledges likely participation in ALL-future testing.
8. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (FINANCIAL)
8.1 This research was unfunded.
8.2 The Spotify subscription was paid for personally by the Subject.
8.3 No party stands to benefit financially from these findings, although the Subject has noted that “it would be nice.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors (author) wish to thank the Subject for their (their) patience, the Experimenter for their (their) flexibility, and the Principal Investigator for their (their) leadership during what can only be described as a challenging research environment.
The cat is acknowledged but not thanked, as its contributions remain under review.
DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY
v1.0 — Written between the hours of 2am and 7am, in a dark room, on a phone.
v1.1 — Added Section 2.4 after the cat returned, sparking the Author’s memory that the cat had-indeed been in the room at some unknown moment — this is the last Conflict.
v1.2 — Corrected a typo.
v1.3 — Uncorrected typo, for rigor. (Believed to be final, pending funding results.)
END OF CONFOUNDING FACTORS DISCLOSURE
Please direct all inquiries to the corresponding author, who is also the Subject, who is currently asleep.
Appendix A: Equipment Recommendations for Subsequent Research [This appendix is pending funding.] Appendix B: Experiment 2 data — as-reported by Subject of Experiment 1 [This appendix is pending the Subject’s recollection, which is pending sleep, which is pending the conclusion of this document.]
Phenomenological Report of Medication Side-Effects: Evidence for Quantized Conscious Experience in Peripheral Vision
Hello, my name is Xssandra (They/Them), and I’m a neurodivergent independent researcher working to make a meaningful contribution in the areas of Complexity Science, cross-domain synthesis, and Philosophy of Mind. I’ve lurked around LessWrong without participating for a while, to slowly build my understanding and readiness to meet engagement with appreciation and honesty. I am ready to offer my work to the review process of the minds I have come to respect here, while I also believe I have something meaningful to offer in return.
I feel that this is my strongest piece of writing so far (thanks in part to a spark of inspiration for developing a novel rigorous measurement method), so I look forward to engagement of any kind.
Thank you, in advance.
---
---
Phenomenological Report of Medication Side-Effects:
Evidence for Quantized Conscious Experience in Peripheral Vision
Abstract
This paper presents a first-person phenomenological field report documenting an apparent discrete temporal sampling effect observed in peripheral vision under naturalistic conditions. Following administration of prescribed medication, the researcher-subject observed that moving stimuli (specifically: the researcher-subject’s own thumbs) appeared as discrete, low-frame-rate silhouettes when attended to via lower-periphery vision, while the same stimuli appeared continuous when observed via center-of-focus vision. A preliminary measurement protocol was constructed in situ, yielding an estimated peripheral sampling rate of 12–24 frames per second (6 discrete frames per unidirectional ‘thumb pass’ (defined within) at a pass rate of approximately 2-4 per second). A second experiment concerning auditory interference patterns was initiated during the first experiment. The substantial methodological limitations of both experiments are documented extensively in the attached Confounding Factors disclosure. Despite these limitations, the Author believes the observations warrant further investigation under conditions involving a second person — and additional funding.
Keywords: phenomenology, peripheral vision, temporal perception, quantized experience, consciousness, confounding factors, first-person methodology
---
[Sensory Observations]
Documenting “Subjective Experiences”
I am here to list my personal experiences of subjective feelings, perceptions, and memories and observations of this self-analysis.
For instance, as I am typing this, I am lying comfortably in a dark room with the light of my mobile device providing the only light in the room. I am relaxed and I have just taken my prescribed medication, which seems to have very minor effects on my perception at times. (ie, I feel slightly-less distress from the shocking-pain stimulus triggered by Allodinia — caused by the perceptual whiplash of a light being switched-on WHILE attenuated-to AND while-expecting a dim/dark lighting-environment.)
---
Right now, in Position 1: when my attention is focused on the words I am typing (“THESE — right ‘here’ and ‘Here’.”) as they appear around “the middle” of my screen, WHEN I notice that— in my Lower-Periphery Vision ([LPV]) (which as I understand: is processed somewhat differently than one’s Center-Of-Focus ([COF]) — for-instance, LPV is “better-at ‘noticing’ AND ‘detecting’ ‘snake-like motion’” according to experiment results) that the visual-image of my thumbs appear as silhouettes AND they are moving (whether by typing OR by normal “fluid-like motion”) — they VISUALLY-appear to me as “stop-motion” dark-silhouettes at a “low frame-rate” (in terms of: Animation, Motion-Graphics, Film, Video) that I would estimate “around 12–24 frames per second” (based on a somatically-anchored repetitive movement “routine” at a high-confidence “oscillation-rate” (benchmarked between 1–2 seconds in duration — against the visible Timestamp of the Spotify interface) and “rapidity” (higher = less “pause” between oscillation-direction change (in other words: my thumbs movements “felt consistent between the two ‘Focus Points’” (Focus Points defined-as: Position 1, Position 2. Position 1: [COF] “mid-screen” Position 2: [COF] “thumbs”))) WHILE listening to a song on Spotify AND counting the number of “silhouettes” I see as clearly-defined frames on a single “thumb pass” (defined as: One-directional movement across the field-of-vision — either upward, or downward) of “‘oscillationary movement’” (defined as: “Moving my thumbs up-and-down at a regular-rate of ‘a little-more than one cycle-per-second’. I call it ‘Non-Zero Thumb’” Meaning: One full-cycle “‘oscillationary movement’” involves one upwards-movement, and one downwards-movement, of the Subject’s thumb (which in terms of Subject’s visual perspective: the position of the Subject’s thumb is between their-own face, and the mobile-device screen) WHILE their mobile-device’s screen has a Non-Zero probability of plotting a position between the reader’s-face and “You” (defined as: the parsing apparatus of this Field Report).) which comes out to 12–24 (Equation: (‘thumb pass’ × ‘oscillationary movement’ = FPS (not First Person Shooter, but Frames Per Second)) 6×2=12. To-twenty-four.)
Stated: “6-frames per ‘thumb pass’, 2-‘thumb pass’ per ‘oscillationary movement’, rate of 1–2 ‘oscillationary movement’ per second.”
---
Position 1 Findings
(Eyes directed above thumbs)
Frame-Rate effect present. “I notice it by shifting my awareness to my [LPV].”
---
Position 2 Findings
(Eyes directed behind thumbs)
Frame-Rate effect absent. “It feels like what my eyes point at is a higher-frame-rate, or at least processed differently or at a different bandwidth.”
—
Experimenter’s Note:
Attempting to ensure “regularity of speed, rate, and pattern” led to acknowledged difficulties in the measurement system AND the unit being measured BEING one-in-the-same. However, due to this being a preliminary field test constructed “on-the-fly” when first-noticing the phenomenon and desiring to capture data about it in some preliminary-way, the researchers have decided to include the extreme-bias of the data, as no-other method could have been employed — while lacking rigorous testing conditions or tools (accelerometer, video-capture, lab assistant, etc (as noted in: Appendix A)) AND while unsure of phenomenon reproducibility outside of current-state. Also: despite acknowledged limitations (including the most-precarious situation in-which: the subject, the experimental examiner, the Principal Investigator, the measuring-device, the recording-device ALL being one-in-the-same).
Investigator’s Note:
I agree with the Experimenter’s recommendations for equipment in subsequent—better-funded research.
Researcher’s Note:
A second experiment utilizing a SEPARATE dual-sensory channel of a DIFFERENT signal-type was designed WHILE writing AND performing the above experiment (Experiment 1) — one which was inspired by the Principal Investigator sharing a non-verbal account of a immediately-recent personal experience with the Subject of Experiment 1 WHILE the Subject was reporting/writing their phenomenological-account (a MASSIVE breech of standard experimental practice AND of stated methodology design!
However—under the circumstances—unavoidable.)
---
Experiment 2
The reported phenomena:
”Audible voice and strange ‘interference pattern’ between the audio of the Left-Channel Earbud and the audio of the Right-Channel Earbud” as-reported by the Subject-Researcher-Investigator occurring between approximately Timestamp: “0:06–0:10” of the track titled: (see [Appendix B: Experiment 2 data — as-reported by Subject of Experiment 1] (see attached “Confounding_Factors” disclaimer)).
---
---
Summary
12–24,
and 6–10
---
---
CONFOUNDING FACTORS DISCLOSURE
Document ID: CF-001
Status: Mandatory Pre-Reading
Classification: Uncomfortable Truths
Filed by: The Subject (on behalf of the Researcher, the Experimenter, the Principal Investigator, and the Recording Secretary — all of whom were consulted and all of whom agreed unanimously, as they often do)
The following confounding factors have been identified, acknowledged, and subsequently not controlled for:
1. PERSONNEL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1.0 This document was not created until AFTER it was referred to in the parent document. This is the first Conflict.
1.1 The Subject is also the Principal Investigator.
1.2 The Principal Investigator is also the Experimenter.
1.3 The Experimenter is also the Recording Secretary.
1.4 The Recording Secretary is also the Subject.
1.5 At no point during the study was any individual available to provide oversight of any other individual, as all individuals were occupied being each other.
1.6 A formal complaint was filed (by the Subject) regarding the Experimenter’s conduct during Experiment 1 (see: Section 3.2). The complaint was reviewed by the Principal Investigator, who dismissed it on the grounds that “we’ve all been through a lot today.”
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
2.1 The laboratory environment was a bed.
2.2 The lighting conditions were described by the Experimenter as “whatever my phone is doing.”
2.3 Ambient temperature was not measured but editorially described as “fine.”
2.4 The Subject’s cat entered the testing environment at an undocumented timestamp and was not removed, as the Subject reported feeling “indifferent about it.” The cat’s influence on Experiments 1 and 2 is believed to be negligible but remains formally unquantified.
2.5 A pillow was adjusted beneath the Subject’s head at approximately the midpoint of Experiment 1. The Experimenter did not note the exact time of this intervention because the Experimenter was the one who wanted the pillow.
(Note: The cat did not consent to participation. An IRB exemption was not sought because no IRB exists.)
3. PHARMACOLOGICAL FACTORS
3.1 The Subject had recently taken prescribed medication.
3.2 The effects of said medication on visual perception were described by the Subject as “minor” — a characterization the Principal Investigator accepted without challenge, as the Principal Investigator had also recently taken the same medication, and opined: “No Conflict, due to the Conflict being the subject of study.” The Experimenter subsequently asked for silence during the session, which the Subject took offense to and immediately declared intent to file “a complaint or report you or something.” (As of the publication of this document: no report has been filed.)
3.3 No placebo control was administered. The Subject was aware of this and described the omission as “obvious.”
3.4 Caffeine status: unrecorded. Estimated by the Experimenter as “Non-Zero.”
4. MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
4.1 The primary measurement device was the Subject’s thumbs.
4.2 The secondary measurement device was the Subject’s eyes.
4.3 The tertiary measurement device was the Subject’s sense of elapsed time, benchmarked against a Spotify timestamp that the Subject could not look at directly without compromising the visual task being measured.
4.4 The quaternary measurement device was “intuition.”
4.5 Calibration of the above instruments was not performed, as no independent reference standard for “how fast thumbs go” could be located at the time of testing.
5. EXPERIMENTER BIAS
5.1 The Experimenter wanted the results to be measurable and well-defined, so personal costs were paid by the Experimenter in the absence of grant-funded equipment, while denying this expense being paid as favor to the Principle Investigator—despite their personal relationship. This may present a motivating bias in documentation of the results of Experiment 1 & 2.
5.2 The Subject also had personal stake in the integrity of the results.
5.3 These desires were not independent (see: Sections 1.1–1.4).
5.4 At one point, the Subject described a visual phenomenon as “definitely real and not just me wanting it to be real,” which the Experimenter recorded without comment.
6. PROTOCOL DEVIATIONS
6.1 Experiment 2 was designed during Experiment 1.
6.2 The inspiration for Experiment 2 came from the Principal Investigator sharing an immediately-recent personal experience with the Subject of Experiment 1 during data collection — a deviation the methodology document (this document’s parent) describes as “a MASSIVE breech of standard experimental practice.”
6.3 The methodology document contains a spelling error in the word “breach,” which the Recording Secretary has opted to preserve in the historical record as an additional data point about conditions at time of writing, and to demonstrate dedication to rigor.
6.4 The Subject took a break of unknown duration to pet the cat (see: Section 2.4). It is unclear whether this occurred between experiments or during one.
6.5 Music was playing throughout both experiments. The song changed at least once. This was not planned, and likely occurred at the precise moment at which the Principal Investigator realized that the previous song hand ended while they were doing “silent” math in-their head, OVER the Experimenter’s shoulder, compounding the distractive potential of the Principle Investigator’s “vibe”. This was the same moment in which the Principal Investigator began sharing a non-verbal personal anecdote with the Subject.
7. STATISTICAL CONCERNS
7.1 Sample size: n=1 (or n=5, depending on how you count).
7.2 No power analysis was conducted.
7.3 No analysis of any kind was conducted.
7.4 The reported figures (12–24 FPS, 6–10 Timestamp) represent the Subject’s best guess, produced under conditions fully described by Sections 1 through 6 of this document.
7.5 Error bars: not applicable, as there is nothing to put them on.
7.6 Reproducibility: The team acknowledges likely participation in ALL-future testing.
8. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (FINANCIAL)
8.1 This research was unfunded.
8.2 The Spotify subscription was paid for personally by the Subject.
8.3 No party stands to benefit financially from these findings, although the Subject has noted that “it would be nice.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors (author) wish to thank the Subject for their (their) patience, the Experimenter for their (their) flexibility, and the Principal Investigator for their (their) leadership during what can only be described as a challenging research environment.
The cat is acknowledged but not thanked, as its contributions remain under review.
DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY
v1.0 — Written between the hours of 2am and 7am, in a dark room, on a phone.
v1.1 — Added Section 2.4 after the cat returned, sparking the Author’s memory that the cat had-indeed been in the room at some unknown moment — this is the last Conflict.
v1.2 — Corrected a typo.
v1.3 — Uncorrected typo, for rigor. (Believed to be final, pending funding results.)
END OF CONFOUNDING FACTORS DISCLOSURE
Please direct all inquiries to the corresponding author, who is also the Subject, who is currently asleep.
Appendix A: Equipment Recommendations for Subsequent Research
[This appendix is pending funding.]
Appendix B: Experiment 2 data — as-reported by Subject of Experiment 1
[This appendix is pending the Subject’s recollection, which is pending sleep, which is pending the conclusion of this document.]
Happy April!