Sentence examples for trials extinction from inspiring English sources

Of note, in contrast to No-Reward trials, Extinction trials did not induce a FRN.

The cluster analysis was applied to the group-averaged ERPs of the three outcome types (Reward trials, No-Reward trials, Extinction trials).

The GEV and duration of maps were then subjected to repeated measures ANOVA using outcome type (Reward trials, No-Reward trials, Extinction trials) and map as within-subject factors.

Once rats had shown accurate performance on two consecutive days (>90% correct trials) extinction commenced the next day.

To ensure that birds had a similar level of pecking performance prior to each task, a bird only proceeded directly from one task to the next if it had pecked in ≥80% of the trials (extinction learning recovery, novel stimulus task, forced choice task; see below); otherwise the task was repeated until criterion (pecks in ≥80% of trials).

To analyze spontaneous recovery, we ran Training Group (PIT, PVT) × CS (CS+, CS−) × Time (Last Trial of Extinction, First Trial of Extinction Retest) mixed models with SR, shock US expectancy, and self-report fear as dependent variables.

The hypothesis that PIT would decrease reinstatement effects compared to PVT was analyzed using Training Group (PIT, PVT) × Reinstatement US Type (Shock, Scream) × CS (CS+, CS−) × Time (Last Trial of Extinction Retest, First Trial of Reinstatement Test) mixed models with SR, shock US expectancy, and self-report fear as the dependent variables.

When translated to heroin-addicted humans, similar retrieval trials before extinction sessions impaired cue-induced heroin craving up to 6 months later.

No area was more active in Reward or No-Reward trials than Extinction trials.

dHPC and vHPC tissue oxygen signals were significantly lower during CS+ than CS− trials throughout extinction.

Columns 5 and 6 show responses for the first and last CS+ and CS− trials of extinction (i.e. column 5: CS−1 vs. CS+1; column 6: CS−5 vs. CS+5).