Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Stimulation is with the rotating full field checkerboard alternating with uniform background illumination.
Similar(59)
Visual stimuli consisted of full-field checkerboard patterns (contrast 80%, mean luminance 50 cd/m2) generated on a TV monitor.
One consisted of a full-field checkerboard pattern (contrast 80%, mean luminance 250 cd/m2) generated on a TV monitor and reversed in contrast at a rate of 3.1/s (transient-VEP [TR-VEP]).
Visual stimuli consisted of full-field checkerboard patterns (contrast 80%, mean luminance 250 cd/m2) generated on a TV monitor and reversed in contrast at a rate of 3.1 s−1.
Visual stimuli were full-field checkerboard patterns (contrast, 80%; mean luminance, 50 cd/m2) generated on the TV monitor and reversed in contrast at a reversal rate of 3.1 reversals per second.
Visual stimuli consisted of full-field checkerboard patterns (contrast 80%%, mean luminance 50 cd/m2) generated on a TV monitor; the reversal rate was 1.55 Hz (3.1 reversal per second)).
Finally we also applied the same full-field checkerboard stimulation paradigm as during the fMRI-sessions (see Materials and Methods), albeit with shorter (10 s) stimulation (ON) and background (OFF) periods.
This included the V1 area intended for lesioning (Figure 2A, between the white arrows) and its corresponding LPZs in areas V2 and V3. Figure 2B shows a map of coherence obtained using the full-field checkerboard stimulus approximately 6 months post-lesioning.
Full-field checkerboard stimulation was applied to each eye separately (central fixation; rectangular stimulus field diagonally subtending 10.3° of visual angle; check-size, 30.96′ minutes of arc; 2 × 300 stimuli per eye; 526 ms interstimulus interval; mean luminance 57.5 cd; Michelson contrast, 97 %) according to international guidelines (Celesia and Brigell 1999).
We also measured the multi-unit activity modulation elicited by the full field (260×200) checkerboard stimulation we used in the fMRI experiments (Materials and Methods).
Full field below.
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