Duplicated Values in Probes.sav

Hi everyone.
We've come across a glitch in a probe study that we're currently running.
I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced it and/or if you can notice something we're doing wrong in our probes.csv file.

It's a study where two different conditions are run off the same laptop (say condition1.exp and condition2.exp) from withing the same study directory. They each call on the same probes.csv file, but their .que files only call half the "sets" in probes.csv. For example, running condition1.exp has stim1.que, stim3.que, and stim5.que, and calls set 1, 3, and 5 respectively from probes.csv. Then, condition2.exp calls all the even .que files, each which have parameters directing them to the even sets in probes.csv.

It would seem that this should be permissible. But, something weird happens when we look at the data. I've attached a simplified probes.sav file.

Subjects 1 & 3 completed condition1.exp and therefore probes 1-3

Subject 2 completed condition2.exp and had probes 4 and 5.

When you look at the dataset, though, rather than having "0" or missing data for variables that the second subject did not receive, it [I]mirrors[/I] the value of that variable from subject 1.

Why is this?
What can we do about it...other than backing up the data after every subject and clearing out the probes.sav file?

No I certainly have not heard of this before. If you close out of MediaLab before you run the subsequent session (the one that would mirror the previous data) does that resolve it? I'm just wondering if the sessions are run back to back if the older data are not being over written because those variables are not being used in that next session--consequently you are seeing them appear as they were rather than as missing values. If that's the case, then I expect closing MediaLab before the next session would resolve it as that would wipe any memory of those values.

I had the same problem, and it's consistent (happened with two different samples and on all computers). My solution was to ignore the mirrored data in the probes file. Luckily, it did not replace any "real" data. It simply appeared where there should have been nothing. It was more time-consuming than it should have been (had to check the condition and the data for each subject), but it worked out.

Thank you for the additional input miglenam - It's good to hear that actual data isn't changed by this bug.