Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(25)
A repeated measures ANOVA was run with exogenous cue validity (valid, invalid) and endogenous cue validity (valid, invalid) as within-subjects variables.
In order to investigate this, we ran a repeated measures ANOVA with context (reward vs. control), exogenous cue validity (valid, invalid), and endogenous cue validity (valid, invalid) as variables, on no-reward trials only.
A further anova with factors of TMS blocks (first third, last third), cue validity (valid, invalid) and TMS (contralateral to cue, ipsilateral to cue) revealed no interaction with blocks (all F < 1).
To calculate the validity effect and the right hemifield disadvantage, RTs for correct responses for each cycle phase were subjected to a 2×2 ANOVA (Greenhouse-Geisser) with factors validity (valid, invalid) and visual hemifield (left, right).
To test for EEG session-dependent functional cerebral asymmetry (FCA), we calculated a 2×2 ANOVA with factor validity (valid, invalid) and hemifield (left, right) separately for the first, second and third EEG session.
A 2×3×2 ANOVA of RTs was carried out with anxiety (high, low), valence of face cue (angry, happy, neutral), and cue validity (valid, invalid) as IVs; see Table 2 for means and SDs.
Similar(35)
Clicks are broken down as "valid" or "invalid", with "invalid" ones further broken down into "innocuous invalid" and "attempted click fraud".
Next, each day was coded as valid or invalid and invalid days were removed from the dataset.
Cue and imperative stimuli were sampled in each block from distributions containing 85%–15%, 70%30%%, or 55%45%% of valid-invalid trials.
Critically, the number of validly and invalidly cued trials in each block varied randomly across the experiment, containing either 85%:15%, 70%30%%, and 55%45%% of valid-invalid trials, respectively.
P1 measurements were submitted to repeated measures ANOVAs in which validity (no target vs. valid vs. invalid) and laterality (ipsilateral vs. contralateral) were included as within-subject factors.
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