Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(38)
Mean gaze duration and bias scores under the various study conditions are summarized in Table 3.
Attentional bias for food cues was also present in the maintenance phase of attention, as measured by gaze duration.
Both obese and normal-weight individuals demonstrated increased gaze duration for food compared to non-food images in the fasted condition.
The gaze duration bias in the fed condition correlated positively with subjective hunger ratings (r=0.47) and negatively with TPQ harm avoidance (r=-0.38), Ps<0.05.
Both obese and normal-weight individuals demonstrated longer gaze duration for food images than non-food images in the fasting condition.
The responses were scored as correct or incorrect from both the direction of the first look and the total gaze duration towards each person after the voice presentation.
Similar(22)
All subjects were exposed to presentations of happy and threatening faces, while recording gaze durations with an eye-tracker.
Regarding the first 500 ms, the analysis of variance yielded significant effects of coping style indicating longer gaze durations to the threatening than to the happy faces in the sensitizer group (F 2,35) = 4.11; p<.05; see figure 1).
Interestingly, we found longer gaze durations towards positive faces only in repressors and sensitizers for a window later in time (500 8000 ms), when conscious control processes presumably play a more important role.
Furthermore, we hypothesized that obese adults would show increased attentional bias for food cues compared with normal-weight individuals, and that satiety would have a reduced effect on their attentional bias for food cues as measured by gaze orientation, duration of gaze fixation, and manual reaction time to a visual probe.
We evaluated whether eye movements, analyzed in terms of gaze fixation duration, are related to establishing selection and rejection control relationships and whether the use of different response topographies influences the time spent observing the stimuli presented in each trial.
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