Exact(7)
Playbacks varied with respect to the familiarity of the stimuli to the local group, using the following dyads: (1) familiar male 1 versus familiar female 1; (2) familiar male 2 versus familiar female 2; (3) unfamiliar male 1 versus familiar female 3; (4) familiar male 3 versus unfamiliar female 1; and (5) unfamiliar male 2 versus unfamiliar female 2 (Table 1).
To maximize differences in familiarity and minimize any label ambiguities resulting from the subjective familiarity scores, only the data from the listening session with the most (i.e., familiarity level 6) and least (i.e., familiarity level 1) familiar samples in our dataset were used to perform the analysis.
The 3 faces were either all unfamiliar or 2 unfamiliar and 1 familiar.
Experiment 1 focused on exploration patterns during the first object recognition test postsurgery, in which each trial contained 1 novel and 1 familiar object.
The model consisted of four active conditions: 1) familiar music, 2) familiar speech, 3) unfamiliar music, and 4) unfamiliar speech, and two auditory control conditions: 5) scrambled music and 6) scrambled speech.
In each of the regions identified in effects 1 3 above, we investigated whether there was more activation at P < 0.001 uncorrected for 1) familiar versus unfamiliar music in violinists and 2) familiar versus unfamiliar speech in actors.
Similar(53)
For each participant, 12 odors (6 high familiar, 6 low familiar) served as targets at encoding and 12 odors (6 high familiar, 6 low familiar) as distractors at later testing.
For each participant, 80 faces (40 high familiar, 40 low familiar) served as targets at encoding and 80 faces as distractors (40 high familiar, 40 low familiar) at testing.
At test, 80 target faces along with the remaining 80 distractor faces were presented, that is, in total 160 faces (80 high familiar, 80 low familiar).
At testing all odors from the encoding session was presented along with the same number of distractor odors, that is, in total 24 odors (12 high familiar, 12 low familiar).
That led me to I-78, familiar territory.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com