Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
"Bad prize money, bad racing, I just decided not to go.
Unknown to children, they received 45 "good prize" and 45 "bad prize" trials, presented in random order, regardless of which box they chose on any given trial.
Each child was shown two boxes on a computer screen and was told that one of them contained a good prize and the other a bad prize.
That is, s/he would get a red star if s/he picked the "good prize" and get a black star if s/he picked the "bad prize" box.
An alternative explanation for this lack of an FRN difference between the good and bad prize may have to do with the "salience" or "value" of the prizes to the children.
To examine whether children in the prize-guessing game applied response strategies in response to feedback, we classified each trial according to whether children choose the box on the same side as the previous trial and whether that previous trial had been a good or bad prize.
Similar(52)
Repeated measures ANOVA showed that the N1 amplitude showed no differences between good and bad prizes.
The repeated measures ANOVA on mean amplitude of FRN with factors of Prize (good, bad) revealed that there were no significant differences between good and bad prizes.
The topographic map also showed right hemispheric differences in scalp electrical activity evoked by good vs. bad prizes (Figure 2).
Unlike the FRN, we observed that the PSW was larger for good prizes than bad prizes at the right central parietal scalp sites.
Finally, we found that the P1 amplitude over the occipital sites was larger and latency shorter for good prizes than bad prizes.
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