Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Important modifications in repeater designs, antenna structures and spectrum policies open up exciting opportunities for GEO satellites to support a variety of emerging applications, ranging from telemedicine to real-time data transfer between LEO satellite and ground station.
An analysis of the volume of the BOLD response (not shown) reveals a similar trend: In non-repeater birds, there is a significantly larger volume of response to TUT than to CON (p = 0.04) and BOS (p = 0.03), whereas in repeater birds the response to TUT does not differ from CON and BOS (p = 1 for both cases).
Similar(57)
The generation of suspense in repeaters is no less mysterious than the generation of fear.
We directly measured this correlation in repeaters and non-repeaters.
Figure 4 shows that there is no high correlation of % magnitude or % volume of the response with stimulus duration in repeaters and in non-repeaters.
There is no such reduction in repeaters when responses to TONE and BOS are measured.
Moreover, volume and magnitude of response to CON are significantly stronger in repeaters compared to non-repeaters.
Since BOLD activation to TUT is much weaker in repeaters than in non-repeaters, it is likely that the lack of correlation in non-repeaters is due to saturation of the BOLD response to TUT in the latter birds.
The response to TUT in repeaters is significantly weaker than in non-repeaters, as measured by the BOLD response magnitude and volume in the field L region.
For the volume of activation the differences for non-repeaters, but not repeaters were significant (for % volume in non-repeaters F = 3.37, p = 0.032; in repeaters F = 0.96, p = 0.42, one-way ANOVA).
Both repeaters and non-repeaters showed significant stimulus-specific differences in BOLD response magnitude (for % magnitude in non-repeaters F = 3.69, p = 0.023; in repeaters F = 6.32, p = 0.002, one-way ANOVA).
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