Sentence examples for cues experiment from inspiring English sources

The purpose of this experiment was to test why the Hpc1 rats were impaired on the biconditional discrimination that involved distal spatial cues (Experiment 4) yet unimpaired on the biconditional that relied on proximal context cues (Experiment 3).

The vibrotactile warning signals consisted of dynamic toward-/away-from-torso cues (Experiment 1), dynamic versus static vibrotactile cues (Experiment 2), looming-intensity and constant-intensity-toward-torso cues (Experiment 3), and static cues presented on the hands or on the waist, having either a low or high vibration intensity (Experiment 4).

One problem is that the rats with anterior thalamic lesions could still acquire a spatial go/no-go task that relied on distal cues (experiment 3B, Fig. 8D).

Braking reaction times (BRTs) were significantly faster for toward-torso as compared to away-from-torso cues (Experiments 1 and 2) and static cues (Experiment 2).

We then show that it is unrelated to response cuing or simply the binding of any two types of cues (Experiment 3), and unrelated to feature-based attention presented in isolation at fixation without any spatial cueing (Experiment 4).

We show that such figures can be detected as objects that can be distinguished, consistent with a high-level mechanism for object detection as opposed to the simple detection of frequency or modulation cues (experiment 2).

The second class of cues (Experiments 2, 3) concerned the visual arrangement of different patterned walls surrounding a square pool.

These shortcomings include the ability of the current rats to solve many of the location ("go/no-go") discriminations, which presumably involved distal cues (Experiments 5 and 9).

They successfully acquired a simple discrimination, with and without additional delays (Experiment 1), and a non-spatial, conditional discrimination, with and without a discontiguity between the start arm conditional cue and the goal arm cues (Experiments 3 and 2, respectively).

We then tested mice on non-spatial versions of the conditional T-maze task, either with or without a discontiguity between the conditional cues and the goal arm cues (Experiments 2 and 3).

The selective deficit found for the biconditional discrimination that taxed the use of distal room cues (experiments 2D and 2F; see Results) raises the question of whether the ATNx1 rats could effectively discriminate the spatial cues.