There was no interaction between stress condition and learning trial type (F 1, 58) = .204, p = .723).723
However, there was a significant three way interaction between learning trial type, trait adjective valence and stress condition (F 1, 58) = 9.83, p<.01, η2 = .15).15
It was significantly later than the IO 0.95) learning trial.
This learning trial is termed the ideal observer learning trial with level of certainty 0.95 [IO (0.95)] (Smith et al., 2004).
Learning was assessed by entering the performance on learning trial 1 to 5 as within subject variables.
One learning "trial" consists of n epochs, where we usually chose n = 50 leading to 1,000 executed trajectories.
The rest of the trials after learning trial were used to calculate the ridge to background ratio scores for calculating the reliability score.
In HAND, we could consider enrolling subjects with HAD, MND, and ANI defined by Frascati criteria, aged 25 50 years into an adaptively designed "learning" trial.
As a result, the estimated probability of correct response may be arbitrarily close to the chance level at the IO 0.95) learning trial.
The distribution is multimodal near the learning trial because the probability of correct response is small if the winner is an incorrect cell, and large otherwise.
This suggests that, in typical learning data, the IO 0.95) learning trial may be earlier than the learning trial determined using learning criteria that require a high probability of correct response, such as 90% correct, before accepting the occurrence of learning.
