Exact(4)
Iwata:You talked about that during the second presentation.
Scaling studies have shown that for higher dimensional input patterns, membership change is unlikely during the second presentation epoch.
Theories of reminding suggest that the effortful memory retrieval of the first presentation during the second presentation enhances memory for the first presentation (Tullis, Benjamin, & Ross, 2014), enables comparison between the two episodes, and fosters generalizations as a result of that comparison process (Ross & Kennedy, 1990).
During the second presentation of the training set, it is possible that individual patterns will change category membership, but this will cease in subsequent presentations.
Similar(56)
Notably, however, the overall magnitude of the N400 was matched across the true and false recognition conditions for the second presentation during the test [F 1,20) = 0.016 for 300 400 ms; F 1,20) = 2.29 for 400 500 ms; p values > 0.15;].
As mentioned above, the vigilance parameter for Fuzzy ART determines the ultimate number of categories learned during the first presentation.
First, we found that neural activity during the first presentation did not differ significantly between the spaced and massed conditions (Fs<1).
For the crucial test, we compared responding during the first presentation of EF between groups, as with the rat study.
After viewing all 60 questions, participants were asked to make their best guess in response to questions they chose not to answer during the first presentation.
To isolate neural correlates of true recognition and of false recognition, we compared ERPs elicited during the first presentation of words during the memory test for three conditions: target hits, related lure false alarms, and related lure correct rejections.
That is, if retrieval monitoring occurred during the first presentation, then it would not be required on the second presentation (which occurred after a brief delay from the first presentation), thus leading to a negative repetition effect (i.e., less of the late positive ERPs associated with monitoring).
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