I agree that in principle we should expect that an intervention could adjust both the amount of time spent on old and new objects. Perhaps they were just assuming that a differential between interest in new/old objects will always exist, regardless of factors that shorten/lengthen examination time of all objects (presumed to do so roughly equally).
If they were actually assuming that time spent on new objects is constant, that would indeed be contradicted by the data, as you point out.
The large difference in general interest (time spent on new objects) in the RGS rats cries out for explanation.
Perhaps they were just assuming that a differential between interest in new/old objects will always exist, regardless of factors that shorten/lengthen examination time of all objects (presumed to do so roughly equally).
Yes; that’s what I expect. But making that assumption, and then focusing on just a small piece of the data they collected, caused them to overlook the large differences in time spent examining new objects.
And they could be right in that assumption! It just seems very unlikely. I think it’s more likely that someone startled the rats when they were being exposed to the new objects at the 60-minute mark. For instance, one of the lab technicians visited his girlfriend that day, and she has a cat.
It’s nice that you noticed this.
I agree that in principle we should expect that an intervention could adjust both the amount of time spent on old and new objects. Perhaps they were just assuming that a differential between interest in new/old objects will always exist, regardless of factors that shorten/lengthen examination time of all objects (presumed to do so roughly equally).
If they were actually assuming that time spent on new objects is constant, that would indeed be contradicted by the data, as you point out.
The large difference in general interest (time spent on new objects) in the RGS rats cries out for explanation.
Yes; that’s what I expect. But making that assumption, and then focusing on just a small piece of the data they collected, caused them to overlook the large differences in time spent examining new objects.
And they could be right in that assumption! It just seems very unlikely. I think it’s more likely that someone startled the rats when they were being exposed to the new objects at the 60-minute mark. For instance, one of the lab technicians visited his girlfriend that day, and she has a cat.