Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
The intervals differed neither between speaker groups or the execution decisions as main effects, nor as interaction between these factors (Fs <1).
Similar(59)
The interaction between speaker group and assessment stage was marginally significant for mathematics (F 4,44) = 2.647, p = 0.046).
There was a significant association between speaker group (BIL and LE-MONO) and recovery outcome (persistent/recovered): χ = 4.381, df = 1, p = 0.036.
The intervals did not differ between the speaker groups, F 2, 55) = 0.62, p = .54.54
No interaction was found between the speaker groups and the attributes, F 2, 55) = 0.78, p = .47.47
The interaction between the speaker groups and the attributes was nonsignificant, F 2, 55) = 0.95, p = .39.39
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) with factor Group (Chinese, German, Polish) indicated a marginal difference of the reaction times between the speaker groups, F 2, 55) = 2.85, p = .07.07
Finally, when nogo decision latencies were compared between the speaker groups there was no significant difference, F 2, 55) = 0.87, p = .43.43
The error rates were comparable between the three speaker groups, F 2, 55) = 0.51, p = .60.60
In addition to the nogo-LRPs, the latencies of the hand choice and the nogo decision, were compared between the three speaker groups.
Second, the analyses of the nogo decision latencies yielded no difference between the three speaker groups in the nogo/position condition.
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