Sentence examples for token subjects from inspiring English sources

When criterion was reached for all types of token, subjects received nine sessions of consolidation with tokens A, B and C alternated across days.

Assessment, not creativity, remains the driving force behind learning, with what is now a token arts curriculum subjected to an inappropriate process of standardisation.

According to subjects' preferences, tokens were referred to as token A (associated to the high-preferred food), token B (associated to the medium-preferred food), and token C (associated to the low-preferred food).

By the same token, the 10% of subjects from the ROM patient group with a total score of 0.48 or lower would be classified wrongly as a psychiatrically 'healthy' subject.

Typically, capuchins exchanged correctly, and in the very few cases in which they did not do so, the experimenter gave the token back to the subject so that s/he could exchange it again.

Subjects randomly received a token for one song on each trial (subject's preference or an alternative).

Pronoun reference in perfective aspect sentence pairs (total 353 tokens) Reference to subject: 66%% (233 tokens) Reference to post-verbal Goal: 34%% (120 tokens).

Pronoun reference in imperfective aspect and future-marked sentence pairs (total 355 tokens) Reference to subject: 91 % (323 tokens) Reference to post-verbal Goal: 9 % (32 tokens).

(15) Pronoun reference in perfective aspect sentence pairs (total 353 tokens) Reference to subject: 66%% (233 tokens) Reference to post-verbal Goal: 34%% (120 tokens) Pronoun reference in imperfective aspect and future-marked sentence pairs (total 355 tokens) Reference to subject: 91 % (323 tokens) Reference to post-verbal Goal: 9 % (32 tokens)  .

(24) Results of Experiment 3 Group 1 "What happened next?" continuations (total, 715 tokens) Reference to subject: 46%% (329 tokens) Reference to Goal: 54 % (386 tokens) Group 2 "Why?" continuations (762 tokens) Reference to subject: 83 % (632 tokens) Reference to Goals: 17%% (130 tokens)  .

Results of Experiment 3 Group 1 "What happened next?" continuations (total, 715 tokens) Reference to subject: 46%% (329 tokens) Reference to Goal: 54 % (386 tokens) Group 2 "Why?" continuations (762 tokens) Reference to subject: 83 % (632 tokens) Reference to Goals: 17%% (130 tokens).