Sentence examples for valid versus invalid from inspiring English sources

"But we get frustrated because the SFMTA [San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency] doesn't play by the rules of what's valid versus invalid.

Because the fMRI priors become part of the generative model, we use the model evidence to compare (i) multiple versus single, (ii) valid versus invalid, (iii) binary versus continuous, and (iv) variance versus covariance fMRI priors.

An initial (conventional ANOVA) analysis of RTs revealed that subjects, on average, responded faster in blocks containing more valid trials (block type, F2,18 = 4.97; p < 0.01; Figure S1) and faster on valid versus invalid trials (trial type F1,9 = 6.9, p < 0.05).

Subsequent two-tailed t-tests confirmed this pattern of results, with faster responses for valid versus invalid cues after short cue target delays, for both the low-reward, t(29) = 3.85, SE = 4.65, p <.001, and the high-reward, t(29) = 4.42, SE = 4.80, p <.001, conditions.

Crucially, however, in the long-delay condition, a different pattern of results was found: In the high-reward condition, the classic IOR effect was found, with slower responding in the valid versus the invalid cue condition, while in the low-reward condition, there was no effect of cue validity.

We use estimated causal effects from simulated data using known causal networks to study features of the estimated CPDAGs and the distributions of valid causal effects versus invalid causal effects.

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.

The components of the bias for happy faces were unclear because the primary analyses of RTs for happy versus neutral faces showed non-significant results within each of the valid and invalid cue conditions.

A further paired t-test on the magnitude of IOR (i.e., the RT difference between valid and invalid trials) for the two stimulus eccentricities revealed a stronger IOR magnitude for 21° versus 7° stimuli (34 ms vs. 22 ms, t(15) = −5.783, p <.001), showing an eccentricity effect of IOR.

They're all equally valid or invalid, really.