Sentence examples for cue numbers from inspiring English sources

Probes in the non-matching condition (50% of total trials) were either the product of the cue numbers (strong cue-probe association), the multiple of either cue numbers (weak cue-probe association), or an arithmetically neutral number with respect to the cue numbers (no cue-probe association).

The task was to decide whether a single probe number had been shown as part of a previously presented pair of cue numbers.

Galfano, Penolazzi, Vervaeck, Angrilli, and Umiltà (2009) used a paradigm in which non-matching probes could either be the product of both cue numbers (strong cue-probe association), the multiple of one of the cue numbers (weak cue-probe association), or an arithmetically neutral number with respect to the cue numbers (no cue-probe association).

In addition, consistent with the arithmetic relatedness effect, participants were slower in rejecting probes consisting of a false but table-related result than probes arithmetically unrelated to the cue numbers.

Performance in the non-matching conditions was significantly better when the probe number was arithmetically neutral compared to when it was arithmetically related, either strongly (i.e., the product) or weakly (i.e., a multiple of either cue numbers), to the cue digits.

Niedeggen and Rösler (1999) (also see Niedeggen et al., 1999) argued that N400 amplitude was inversely related to the amount of spreading activation from the cue numbers, whereas P3b amplitude more generally reflected (im plausibility of probes, consistent with the view that the P3b is inversely related to the subjective probability of stimuli (Donchin & Coles, 1988).

A mixed 2 (cue number) × 3 (sequence length) analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant effect of cue number, F 1, 27) = 1.147, MSE = 158.746, p =.29.

Participants' median RTs were analyzed with a mixed 2 (cue number) × 2 (object switch condition) ANOVA.

The interaction between cue number and sequence length did not reach significance, F 2, 54) = 0.596, MSE = 8.863, p =.555.

Furthermore, the interaction between cue number and update type did not reach significance, F 1, 27) = 0.183, MSE = 0.003, p =.672, indicating that the additional attentional demand for discriminating the three-arrow cues did not impact on the object switch cost.

Here are a few things: You will say "warning" and the cue number and whom it affects ("warning on deck cue 16," for example).