The former is modality-specific to somatosensory stimulation, whereas, as discussed below, the latter is likely modality-independent.
There was no statistical difference between the former two modalities.
However, based on comparably enhanced posterior negativity for stress mismatch in the present unimodal study and the former cross-modal study, we conclude that target modality does not alter the polarity of the posterior negativity related to stress priming.
Conceptually, a model of the latter sort would provide an attractive scientific explanation: It suggests a general mechanism, which could readily be extended to other modalities; the former scenario, in contrast, renders OS a unique feature of the visual system.
For the latter, simple linear dependence measures (linear correlation) are suitable (Hlinka et al., 2011a) while for the former, more time-resolved, data modality, elaborate methods of synchronization assessment such as mean phase coherence (quantifying the phase synchronization) are commonly used.
This is the major feature that separates explicit and implicit variants of modality because only the former pattern could bring out the meaning potential of projecting circumstance (e.g. in my opinion).
While the former elicited time dilation in all sensory modalities (A, V and AV), the latter did not induce robust changes of duration.
As part of intraoperative monitoring, we chose to employ two modalities with different algorithms, PACO and APCO, the former of which served as a de-facto standard.
The former of these seem increasingly likely since our experience of time differs among modalities [1] [4], and sensory areas are involved in temporal processing [5], [6].
24 Some argue that this may be linked to differences in help seeking as the former prefer psychiatric treatment, 8 while the latter prefer more traditional socially focused healing modalities.
