Sentence examples for electrode factors from inspiring English sources

We also observed various interactions between these experimental factors and one or both of the electrode factors.

There were two significant interactions between experimental and electrode factors: Instruction, Exposure and electrode[L-R] interacted significantly (F1.55, 86.83 = 3.67, p = .04).04

However, there were two interactions between the experimental and electrode factors: prior exposure interacted significantly with electrode[L-R] (F1.72, 96.50 = 3.87, p = .03).03

However, where this revealed an interaction between any of the experimental factors and any of the electrode factors we recalculated the ANOVA using data scaled according to McCarthy and Wood's [25] rescaling technique.

The logic behind this was as follows: with un-scaled data the interaction between the experimental and electrode factors is necessarily ambiguous; an interaction could arise from a genuine difference in the distribution of the effects across the two conditions, or simply from the main effect having a multiplicative effect across the electrodes.

In case of an interaction with the electrode factor, analyses were repeated for each subset of electrodes, that is, the anterior (Fz, Fp2, Fp1, F8, F7, F4, F3), the central (Fcz, Cz, Pz, C4, C3, Cp4, Cp3, Fc4, Fc3), the temporal (Ft8, Ft7, T4, T3, Tp8, Tp7), and the posterior subset (P4, P3, T6, T5, O2, O1).

The effect of the electrode factor was not significant.

Thus a significant interaction involving the "electrode" factor might indicate a hemisphere difference, but would have to be further analyzed focusing on the relevant electrode contrasts.

At this latency range we observed a strong tendency toward significance (F[2,24] = 3.23; p < 0.057 μV) for the orientation × electrode factor.

N2 deflection reached its maximum amplitude at the mesial occipital sites, as confirmed by the statistical significance of the electrode factor (F[2,24] = 8.31; p < 0.001) and relative post-hoc comparisons.

The posterior P300 component was larger at the centro-parietal than the occipito-lateral area (CP1-CP2 = 8.46; PO9-PO10 = 2.55 μV), as proved by the electrode factor (F1,11 = 49.90; p < 0.001; eta2 = 0.82; F-crit = 4.84).