In the categorization condition, subjects categorized each face as Chinese or African American.
In the categorization condition, subjects learned to categorize faces as African American or not.
In one task (semantic categorization), the subjects were asked to categorize the stimuli as corresponding either to the natural or the artifactual class, and in the other (gender decision), the subjects had to decide if the names of the stimuli corresponded to either the masculine or the feminine gender.
In semantic categorization tasks, subjects are faster to categorize concrete words than abstract words [25], [26].
The categorization of subjects as normotensive or hypertensive, using the wrist device in subjects without specific training, achieved a correct classification of 84% (with position sensor) and 81% (without position sensor) in comparison to ABPM.
In addition to this categorization training, subjects performed a control task in which they were visually exposed to two other bird types, but to hinder category learning, the feedback they received was random [17].
Evaluation of categorization of subjects by normal (≤ULN) or high (>ULN) enzyme status showed a change in status from screening to baseline for many subjects.
The advantage with the hybrid approach is that the categorization of subjects with respect to the outcome variables can be avoided.
Following categorization of subjects, we compared the demographic data and the personality traits at the start of the CBT program among groups, using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables and chi-squared test of independence for categorical variables.
In contrast, the study by Freunberger et al. (2008b) favored focus on early categorization because subjects were asked to respond as soon as possible during the stream of picture presentation.
