Higher Productivity Pulse Predicts Very Slightly Higher Walk Or Run Distance for Population

Walk Or Run Distance was generally 0% higher than average after an average of 67.9 percent of Productivity Pulse over the previous 7 days.

Aggregated data from 1 study participants suggests with a MEDIUM degree of confidence (p=0.374, 95% CI -425.204 to 425.243) that Productivity Pulse has a very weakly positive predictive relationship (R=0.0191) with Walk Or Run Distance.

The highest quartile of Walk Or Run Distance measurements were observed following an average 67.6 percent Productivity Pulse.

The lowest quartile of Walk Or Run Distance measurements were observed following an average 68.2 percent of Productivity Pulse.

After an onset delay of 0 seconds, Walk Or Run Distance is typically 0% lower than average over the 7 days following around 68.2 percent Productivity Pulse.

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between Productivity Pulse and Walk Or Run Distance. Additionally, we attempt to determine the Productivity Pulse values most likely to produce optimal Walk Or Run Distance values.

Manual Recording Option

Create a reminder for Productivity Pulse here and record it daily by enabling notifications or using the reminder inbox here .

Manual Recording Option

Create a reminder for Walk or Run Distance here and record it daily by enabling notifications or using the reminder inbox here .

This study is based on data donated by 1 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 1 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

Productivity Pulse Pre-Processing

No minimum allowed measurement value was defined for Productivity Pulse. No maximum allowed measurement value was defined for Productivity Pulse. No missing data filling value was defined for Productivity Pulse so any gaps in data were just not analyzed instead of assuming zero values for those times.

Walk or Run Distance Pre-Processing

Walk or Run Distance measurement values below 1 meters were assumed erroneous and removed. Walk or Run Distance measurement values above 175000 meters were assumed erroneous and removed. No missing data filling value was defined for Walk or Run Distance so any gaps in data were just not analyzed instead of assuming zero values for those times.

Predictive Analytics

It was assumed that 0 seconds would pass before a change in Productivity Pulse would produce an observable change in Walk Or Run Distance.

It was assumed that Productivity Pulse could produce an observable change in Walk Or Run Distance for as much as 7 days after the stimulus event.

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Walk Or Run Distance is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the Productivity Pulse value does not have a significant influence on the Walk Or Run Distance value.

After treatment, a 8.2% increase (-92.9 meters) from the mean baseline 1790 meters was observed. The relative standard deviation at baseline was 112.9%. The observed change was 0.0459971 times the standard deviation.

A common rule of thumb considers a change greater than twice the baseline standard deviation on two separate pre-post experiments may be considered significant. This occurrence would have only a 5% likelihood of resulting from random fluctuation (a p-value < 0.05).

Productivity Pulse data was primarily collected using RescueTime. Detailed reports show which applications and websites you spent time on. Activities are automatically grouped into pre-defined categories with built-in productivity scores covering thousands of websites and applications. You can customize categories and productivity scores to meet your needs.

Walk Or Run Distance data was primarily collected using Fitbit. Fitbit makes activity tracking easy and automatic.

As with any human experiment, it was impossible to control for all potentially confounding variables. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We can never know for sure if one factor is definitely the cause of an outcome. However, lack of correlation definitely implies the lack of a causal relationship. Hence, we can with great confidence rule out non-existent relationships. For instance, if we discover no relationship between mood and an antidepressant this information is just as or even more valuable than the discovery that there is a relationship.

We can also take advantage of several characteristics of time series data from many subjects to infer the likelihood of a causal relationship if we do find a correlational relationship. The criteria for causation are a group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence.

Criteria For Causal Inference

Strength (A.K.A. Effect Size)

A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal. There is a very weakly positive (R = 0.0191) relationship between Productivity Pulse and Walk Or Run Distance.

Consistency (A.K.A. Reproducibility)

Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect. Furthermore, in accordance with the law of large numbers (LLN), the predictive power and accuracy of these results will continually grow over time. 237 paired data points were used in this analysis. Assuming that the relationship is merely coincidental, as the participant independently modifies their Productivity Pulse values, the observed strength of the relationship will decline until it is below the threshold of significance. To it another way, in the case that we do find a spurious correlation, suggesting that banana intake improves mood for instance, one will likely increase their banana intake. Due to the fact that this correlation is spurious, it is unlikely that you will see a continued and persistent corresponding increase in mood. So over time, the spurious correlation will naturally dissipate.

Specificity

Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.

Temporality

The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay). The confidence in a causal relationship is bolstered by the fact that time-precedence was taken into account in all calculations.

Biological Gradient

Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.

Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between cause and effect is critical. This is where human brains excel.

Based on our responses so far,

0 humans feel that there is a plausible mechanism of action for a relationship between Productivity Pulse and Walk Or Run Distance.

0 humans feel that any relationship observed between Productivity Pulse and Walk Or Run Distance is coincidental.

Coherence

Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. It will be very enlightening to aggregate this data with the data from other participants with similar genetic, diseasomic, environmentomic, and demographic profiles.

Experiment

All of human life can be considered a natural experiment. Occasionally, it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence.

Analogy

The effect of similar factors may be considered.

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between cause and effect is critical. This is where human brains excel. Based on our responses so far, 0 humans feel that there is a plausible mechanism of action and 0 feel that any relationship observed between Productivity Pulse and Walk Or Run Distance is coincidental.