We find that motor adaptation was specifically impaired on the most difficult to categorize trials.
Possible alternatives to categorize trials would include 'significant' vs 'non-significant', or 'favorable' vs 'unfavorable' findings.
Furthermore, the terms industry-funded, industry-supported, and industry-sponsored are used interchangeably when categorizing trials according to sponsorship.
Moreover, the use of cut-offs for the total scores categorizing trials reverts to the problem of looking at trial design as purely explanatory or pragmatic [ 8, 16].
Therefore, old faces that received a '1', '2', or '3' rating were defined as forgotten and old faces that received a '5' or '6' rating were defined as remembered, faces received rating '4' were categorized as trials of "no interest" and excluded from further analysis.
We categorized the trials either as pharmaceutical-industry-initiated or non-pharmaceutical-industry-initiated.
Alternatively, to keep the size of subgroups balanced, we categorized the trials into four classes based on the quartiles of the publication year.
Reward size increased more quickly for Fle than Ica as a function of consecutive correct responses, but for both animals we categorized the trials into two conditions: maximal reward size ('large') and sub-maximal reward size ('small'small
All trials reporting interim analysis were categorized, based on trial progress or outcome and therefore classified as either 'Continued to or Extended beyond planned conclusion', 'Early stop for benefit', 'Early stop for harm', 'Stopped for futility' or 'Early stop for other reasons'.
Materials forgotten during T1 were categorized as forgotten trials, and those remembered during T2 were categorized as long-duration trials.
