Furthermore, we do not believe the observed differences in distractor-related brain activity at different task loads are likely to be accounted for by different error rates as there is no significant difference in total error rates (i.e., sum of commission and omission errors) between conditions with vs. without distractors at either task load.
Thus, by directly comparing brain activity during the tasks with that during their corresponding control conditions, we may depict activations purely related to the tasks that cannot be accounted by factors of simple visual and motor processing.
Results obtained in the 4 communicative function tasks may be accounted for by results from the 2 form tasks.
This implies that the correlational structure of the tasks can be accounted for by a general factor alone.
The discrepancy between the tasks might be accounted for by the different procedures used for standardization: performance on the sequential matching task was standardized against performance on a matched control task, whereas the CFMT was standardized against age.
Sixth, the normal ophthalmological assessments suggest that the pattern of performance on flanked letter tasks cannot be accounted for by poor acuity, macular or retinal abnormalities.
However, in terms of understanding whether any differences between epilepsy groups and controls on the social cognition tasks could be accounted for by differences in IQ, analyses taking into account IQ differences between groups are required.
Computational modeling revealed that the apparent increased sensitivity to misleading feedback in the probabilistic discrimination task could be accounted for in terms of an overall reduction in reinforcement sensitivity, irrespective of affective valence.
Stimulus-locked temporal codes may provide useful information about a task or stimulus that may not be necessary for single discrimination or detection tasks and could be accounted for by rate measures alone as demonstrated in the detection of vibratory stimuli [52].
The correlation coefficient between word span and gradient on repeated trials was non-significant (r = −.14, p = .25), indicating that the performance differences in the Hebb repetition learning task cannot be accounted for by individual differences in memory span.
