Sentence examples for stimuli experiments from inspiring English sources

We demonstrate this procedure on the monkey-text experiments of Kovács et al. [14], the geometric rivalry stimuli experiments in Suzuki and Grabowecky [15], and the color misbinding experiments of Shevell and Hong [16, 17].

Our reasoning is straightforward that the behavior of discrimination thresholds for moving stimuli (Experiments 2 and 3) exhibit such a completely different pattern to that for static representations of the motion path (Experiment 1).

Three different manipulations were carried out to distinguish S+ (rewarded) from S− (nonrewarded) stimuli (Experiments 1a, b, and 2a).

Subjects viewed the following images: Experiment one — optokinetic computer stimuli alternating with static computer stimuli; Experiment two — moving animals alternating with non-moving animals; Experiment three — moving animals alternating with optokinetic computer stimuli.

Making slight modifications to the type of feedback (Experiments 2 and 3) or the type of stimuli (Experiment 4) showed no benefit of EMF and in some cases showed a cost of doing so.

The degree of inhibitory control required in the GNG tasks was manipulated by varying the proportion of go and no-go stimuli (experiment 1) and by instructing subjects to devote different amounts of attention to the dual tasks (experiment 2).

This masking and unmasking effect is considerably stronger for motion relative to static stimuli (Experiment 3).

To that end, non-blinkers and blinkers were first tested in a AB task consisting of alphanumeric stimuli (Experiment 1A), followed by an AB task consisting of picture stimuli (Experiment 1B).

Using dichoptic form-masking stimuli, experiment 2A investigated whether the spatio-temporal interpolation mechanism can process monocular form information.

They were presented either in a circular array of 7 stimuli (Experiment 1) or in a 3×3 rectangular array without a central stimulus (Experiment 2), with the average distance between the fixation point at the center of the screen and the inner edge of stimuli being 4.5° (Experiment 1) or 5.25° (Experiment 2).

Using interocular motion stimuli, experiment 1C tested the alternative hypothesis, namely that spatio-temporal interpolation can rely on purely binocular motion information.