Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(30)
P1 amplitudes were greater in valid and neutral cue trials compared to invalid cue trials and acute nicotine administration (vs. placebo) was found to increase P1 amplitudes in the right hemisphere, particularly in valid cue trials.
Chemical cue trials indicated that whelks did not select prey based on chemical recognition, indicating that tactile stimulation was an important driver of prey choice.
In addition, in high symptomatic subjects (as indexed by greater increases in heart rate post-administration), nicotine (vs. placebo) produced greater P1 amplitudes in valid cue trials.
RTs were shorter on food cue trials in both the bottom-up (p = 0.01) and top-down tasks (p < 0.001), however the difference was smaller in the bottom-up task.
Consistent with our hypothesis, on creativity cue trials, the participants were 1) more likely to accurately identify highly creative analogies as valid, and 2) no more likely to inaccurately identify false analogies as valid.
The cue pointed to the wrong location (invalid cue) in the remaining 25% of unidirectional cue trials.
Similar(30)
Within the maintenance period, pupil dilation was greater in Rew Rew than in Rew Neut trials [ F 1, 88) = 25.159, p <.001] and in B- than in A-cue trials [ F 1, 88) = 19.955, p <.001]; a significant Incentive × Cue interaction [ F 1, 88) = 7.568, p =.007] indicated that the B > A cue effect was amplified under incentive.
In all cases this was because pro-cue trials were more positive relative to retro-cue trials.
This resulted from the 'yellow' map being significantly more frequent on pro-cue trials than on retro-cue trials [p = 0.003], and the 'blue' map being significantly more frequent on retro-cue than pro-cue trials [p = 0.001].
There was no significant difference between invalid and no-cue trials, t 9) = 1.65, p = .13.13
In all cases this was because there was a significant switch versus stay GFP difference on retro-cue trials [ps<0.046], but no such difference on pro-cue trials [ps>0.454].
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