http://exhibits.library.stonybrook.edu/mfp/files/original/9b36c93e7e5da91626032598c00c4f25.pdf 5618522729026848b84f1119e53124cc PDF Text Text November 26, 1969 Dr. Reese T. Jones The Langley-Porter Neuropsychiatric 401 Parnassus Blvd. San Francisco, California Clinic 94122 Boar Reese, Following is a summary of our analyses of the hfifi analog tapes submitted earlier this year. Separately, I am returning the analog tapes. Xerox copies of the data sheets are enclosed. first checked the analog signals and because of in peak-to~peak voltages, re-wrote the input differences Each record was then processed as a continuous programs. record using the period analysis program, with 320 samples/ second, 20 second epoch lengthcs, and frequency bands as on the report. Three records by four subjects were satisfactory. Our initial review of this data showed considerable variability for each drug condition. The summary data of that analysis was sent with Noon Galloway earlier. We We thought that power spectrum may yield better data and repeated the analysis of the 3 records of Harris using our power density program with 50 lags, and a sampling rate of 100 samples/second. The outputs were compared to the period analysis and the data was so similar that it seemed unnecessary to repeat the remaining records. Concurrently, we were analyzing other drug induced EEG changes and we became concerned that the continuous analysis may have lost some significance because the sample size was too large. then re-analyzed the continuous record into 3 minute epochs (samples still 20 seconds in length) with means an& sigmas for each 3 minute "sample“. This data seemed more rewarding. so we "artefacted" the records (deleting those 20 second epochs that contained more than 2 seconds of eyeblink, We movement, etc.). �Dr. R. T. Jones . . we... .. w ,,,..._,.,;,..‘ ../...,-w..... .-.~,,..W—n u, _. . ,v _—. November 26, 1969 ~2- means and sigma for each subject and each Based on the pro—drug sigma for calculated. trial each variable, we calculated the change in number of sigmas. This statistical maneuver provides standard scores for drug changes in relation to the stability (or variability) of The pro-drug were the subject's pro—drug record. lhe means for each drug condition across subjects was also calculated. The data was anaiyzed by regression analyiij. For the sample available, only one of the regrcscinn cochicients was significantly different, that of delta for irug 3 (tarijuana). amp—rt" .,... 4» era-when“. Nevertheless, we projected another analysis comparing the drugs in terms of the regression coefficients and intercepts. The slopes of the drug changes were not different between the drug conditions, but there were many changes among the intercepts, particularly for differences - .uav-vrrwr'lw/ placebo, and placebo .v,» . 7....1. m"... and less so for alcohol marijuana). and between alcohol and marijuana (least for An analysis of the pattern of regressions and intercepts for the 20 variables of the study was also carried out, by calculating correlation coefficients. There is little similarity in slope or intercept patterns except for the slopes of marijuana and alcohol (+0.92) suggesting that these have similar effects on the pattern of EEG variables. At this point, we conclude that analysis of the analog signals from your laboratory is feasible; and that the period analytic and statistical programs are operational, For this specific project, few differences between the two drug conditions (marijuana and alcohol) from placebo are observed. The differences were in the rate of onset of the changes in some of the EEG variables, particularly between alcohol and placebo. The degree and the rate of change were not discriminable. few m . r.” .,:V..,,vqm ”a .. ,.,.- ,, w”;- actrmwuq—u In". The reasons for the failure to identify differences are potentially many: 1. There are no differences in EEG effects of the drugs in the dosages or subjects used in this study. �Dr. R. T. Jones November 26, 1969 —3- 2. The changes are varied, with different time courses and degrees of change so that for this small 5 mple (4 subjects) a consistent pattern did not emerge. Contributing to the variation in samples were incomplete artofact control, lack of alertness control, and the short length of the period of observation. The artefact control was hampered by the unavailability of the original strip charts with an observer's notes. The alertness control which we are now introducing is a buzzer task which alerts the subject as sons 15 he inadvertently releases a hand held, spring~loadod kcy a release which is associated with drowsiness and sloop induction. ~ in the marijuana sample may be ”real“, and would suggest an expansion of the number of subjects submitted. If this is not feasible, and the study is repeated or expanded, the EEG samples may be analyzed more rapidly and we would suggest the following small changes in the program: The changes for verification we IQH a 3. Introduce an alertness task recording should be done with better control for peak-revpeak amplitudes. Submit strip charts with tape. EEG you have compared these notes to the data samples, visit us to review the procedures to answer the questions you may have. When perhaps you would care to Sincerely yours, Max Fink, H.D. Professor of Psychiatry MF:kp � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence to: Jones, Reese T. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mfp-05-00-023-6-585 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1969 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a title="Fink, Max, 1923-" href="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79039548" target="_blank">Fink, Max, 1923-</a> Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence -- Correspondence Relation A related resource The Max Fink Collection Description An account of the resource Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a title="IN COPYRIGHT - EDUCATIONAL USE PERMITTED" href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/" target="_blank">IN COPYRIGHT - EDUCATIONAL USE PERMITTED</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Special Collections and University Archives, University Libraries. Stony Brook University Libraries (State University of New York). Language A language of the resource en-US Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Correspondence