Next, trajectories of probes in the same room were averaged, except those on the ground that were set aside (Figure 3).
In order to study if the differences among probes in the same room were statistically significant, multifactor ANOVAs were carried out considering two factors (day and data-logger) and selecting data recorded in summer in one room.
In order to study if the differences among probes in the same room were statistically significant, different multifactor ANOVAs were performed with the key thermohygrometric parameters considering two factors: year (2008 or 2010) and probes (Figures 6, 7, 8).
This parameter was computed for the 18-day period of each year and it was averaged for probes in the same room, which provides useful information about the effect of roof change (Figure 4).
If we study the primer 4 motif containing probes in the same dataset the shift is smaller (fig 3 A,B upper left panels, red lines).
The conventional analytic approach discards neutral trials and operationalizes threat vigilance by comparing response times for probes in the same location as the threat word to response times for probes in the same location as the neutral word [4], [18] [23].
Then the quantile of these values, in comparison with the copy number for all the probes in the same chromosome, was used as a measure of amplitude called QQ0.025 and QQ0.975.
For the conventional measure of threat vigilance using the dot probe task, it was predicted that worry would result in faster responses than mental arithmetic to probes in the same attended location as threat words.
The agarose beads were pelleted by centrifugation, and the supernatants were combined with one of four double-stranded biotinylated-oligonucleotide probes in the same buffer for 1 hour on ice.
A recent meta-analysis of dot probe task studies encompassing many of these paradigm variations found that both state and trait anxiety were associated with faster response times for probes in the same spatial location as previously presented threat stimuli than for probes in a different spatial location from the threat stimuli [19].
No other effects were significant, including the Condition×Threat Word Location×Probe Location interaction, F 1,55) = 3.14, p = 0.25, which serves as the test of the conventional operationalization of threat vigilance positing faster responses to probes in the same attended location as threat words [4], [33].
