Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(4)
Exact(2)
Similarly, reach peak deceleration decreased in conspecific touching task, but in experiment 4 only (interaction between task and experiment, F 1, 22) = 5.9, p<0.05, η2p = 0.2, post-hoc test p<0.05, Fig. 2).
Concerning the second series of ANOVAs, peak velocity of finger opening decreased when the participants interacted with the conspecific, but only in experiment 4, i.e. when the receiver's gaze was available (interaction between task and experiment, (F 1, 22) = 5.0, p<0.05, η2p = 0.2, post-hoc test p<0.05, Fig. 2).
Similar(58)
In the second series of ANOVAs percentage of reach deceleration time was affected by the interaction between factors task and experiment (F 1, 22) = 4.8, p<0.05, η2p = 0.2).
Basically the pattern of the interaction between task and category was comparable to Experiments 1 2 (see Figure 1C), although it did not approached significance, F 2,20)<1, n.s.s
To assess word recognition, Experiment 1 used the Reicher-Wheeler task and Experiment 2 used the lexical decision task.
In both cases, significant main effects of task type and reward were found and, in the analysis of Experiments 1 and 3, a significant interaction between task and reward was observed.
The "motor memory" of this skill was initially labile and between-task interference occurred in Experiment I if the subjects learned an accuracy-tracking task involving the same movement direction and agonist muscles shortly afterwards.
To address this issue, Experiment 2 used a within-participants design to replicate Experiments 1a and 1b, providing a second test of the relationship between task load and target processing efficiency.
In Experiment 2 an intermanual delay improved performance on our in-between task.
The intermanual in-between task used the same piezoelectric stimulation as the intensity task, but was otherwise designed as in Experiment 2. In this task, intensity was irrelevant.
In Experiment 1 our intermanual version allowed us to dissociate the sensory identification and structural representation components of the classic in-between task.
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