Sentence examples for categorisation group from inspiring English sources

This would explain why even the un-exposed Control Categorisation group showed the N1 amplitude differentiation for List 1 and List 2 items.

With our stimuli and procedure such a strategy would be successful for both of the Pre-exposed groups, but only for the Control Categorisation group.

Whilst the early effect of List was not affected by judgement for both the Pre-exposed Recognition and Categorisation groups, the effect was only present for the Control Categorisation group.

However, in the case of this early N1 effect, this would not explain why the Control Categorisation group also show the effect: they cannot be recognising items that they have not seen before.

This resulted from an interaction between List and Instructions in the un-exposed Control groups only (F1, 28 = 5.04, p = .03): there was a relative negativity for List 1 relative to List 2 in the Control Categorisation group (F1, 14 = 4.84, p>.05), but not in the Control Recognition group.

This always comprised the between-subjects factors of Exposure (two levels, Pre-exposed versun-exposedsed Control groups), and Instructions (two levels, Recognition versus Categorisation groups).

Interestingly, we observed these effects for both Categorisation groups, regardless of whether or not they had previously been exposed to the category members.

This result overlapped with another result: taken together the Categorisation groups showed an increased negativity for List 1 relative to List 2 items over the midline electrodes, whereas the Recognition groups did not, presumably because whilst both Categorisation groups showed the effect, only the Pre-exposed Recognition group did.

Although the behavioural performance was equivalent across the Recognition and Categorisation groups we were keen to establish whether the ERP data shown in Figures 4 and 5 could distinguish between categorisation and recognition judgements, with and without prior exposure.

This in turn resulted from a significant negativity for List 1 items relative to List 2 items in the Categorisation groups (F1, 29 = 7.34, p = .01), though not for the Recognition groups.

However, the ERPs suggested that participants' early visual potentials (160 200 ms), often associated with prototype abstraction/application, distinguished category members from non-members in both the Pre-exposed Recognition and Categorisation groups.