Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
A Pavlovian procedure containing a set of several alternative reliable trial stimuli and a set of several alternative unreliable trial stimuli was used to determine if reliability of outcome, per se, would differentially condition additional trial stimuli that either preceded or followed those original trial stimuli in a serial conditioning paradigm.
On each trial, stimuli were presented for 0.2 sec and separated by a 0.5 sec interval containing a blank screen of mean luminance.
In each trial, stimuli were presented for 1000 ms after which a response could be given during 2250 ms. Feedback was presented for 250 ms. Stimuli onset asynchrony was 4000 ms. A training session consisted of 10 blocks of 150 trials.
In each trial stimuli were presented for a maximum of 1500 ms (with a pre-trial pause of 250 ms).
The word and catch trial stimuli were all between 3 and 6 characters long, presented in lower case, size 50, Helvetica font.
Each test session started with a 5-min acclimatization period to background white noise of 68 dB, followed by 30 acoustic startle trial stimuli in six blocks (110 dB white noise of 40 ms duration with 30 or 45 s inter-trial interval).
Similar(54)
The order of presentation of inhibitory (2 ms) and control trial (test stimulus alone) intervals was randomized across subjects.
The trial stimulus was then presented for maximum of 2 s.
Each trial stimulus comprised one of these 36 pairs, and each pair was used twice to counterbalance the left-right positions, making a total of 72 trials.
Nevertheless, the presence of across trial stimulus repetitions significantly improved discrimination capacity among children, albeit the degree of improvement was smaller than in adults.
After the trial stimulus (and the break), the 1 second-break and the fixation cross were again presented (to enable a break between the trials and as a warning for the next stimulus, respectively).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com