Which study meets the federal definition of research with human subjects?

The correct choice indicates a scenario where a cognitive psychologist conducts studies on mood effects, which aligns with the federal definition of research involving human subjects. This definition typically includes any systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, involving interaction with individuals where data are collected through intervention or interaction.

In this context, the psychologist's studies directly involve human participants to assess mood effects, which necessitates ethical considerations, informed consent, and potentially Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. The involvement of human subjects in their natural setting, along with the intention to gather data that contributes to our understanding of psychological phenomena, firmly places this study within the parameters of research as defined by regulations.

While the other options mention activities that may not meet the federal criteria for involving human subjects, such as mere surveys or literature reviews, they do not engage directly with individuals or involve systematic investigation intended for future generalizable knowledge. The survey could imply data collection, but unless it specifically engages participants in a manner outlined by federal regulations, it does not qualify. Literature reviews and meta-analyses of historical data, while valuable in research contexts, do not involve new data collection from human subjects, thereby excluding them from the definition provided by federal guidelines.