To account for the mono- and disaccharide contents of the applied oligosaccharide preparations, effects of these oligosaccharide preparations were compared with effects of corresponding glucose/lactose concentrations in the same model.
A significant onset preparation effect and a significant syllable preparation effect were both observed.
Experiment 1 demonstrated that such words did not benefit from the form overlap, suggesting that the incongruent spelling disrupted the form-preparation effect.
The glycerol conversion and the selectivity of 1,2propanediol (1,2-PD), 1,3-propanediol (1,3-PD) and various products were mainly depend on the method of catalyst preparation, effect of support and also on the Ru loading.
We analysed the data from the supplementary experiment to evidence further this preparation effect, in a design with a far great number of retro-cue trials.
As was outlined in the Methods section, we reasoned that this was the best opportunity to observe the traditional preparation effect.
Pro-cues ought not to capture this preparation effect, as participants would have the duration of post-array interval (1900 ms), to engage in any process that could not be completed before the array, before having to make a response.
On retro-cue trials, this lack of preparation would be captured by performance to the probe; it will be important to compare switch-costs across the two cue intervals, particularly on retro-cue trials, in order to evidence this preparation effect.
We varied the cue intervals in this way in order to examine the preparation effect – the reduction of switch-costs with increasing cue interval, described in the Introduction section – as this is usually taken as evidence for some TSR-like process.
It is important to note that one cannot test for this behavioural preparation effect in our pro-cue condition, as, even on short CTI pro-cue trials, participants could use the post-array interval, after the presentation of the array and preceding the probe, to which they responded, to engage in any time-consuming process.
There was no evidence of the preparation effect in the retro-cue condition, where we would have most likely observed it; the switch/stay difference was not significantly bigger at the short CTI [16% versus 15%, respectively], than at the long CTI [10.9% versus 12%, respectively, F 1,16) = 0.116, p = 0.738].
