Publication date
February 2013
DOIAbstract
<p>Note the different scales between the subjects from the Cued group and the Uncued group. Each subject achieves the improvement in performance in a different way.</p
<p>Note the different scales between the subjects from the Cued group and the Uncued group. Each subject achieves the improvement in performance in a different way.</p
<p>Subjects were first objectively divided into two groups a priori according to their performance o...
<p>Interaction between elaboration and the accuracy of competence attributions on group performance....
<p>Characteristics comparison of participants for five multiple imputation datasets.</p
Scaled d’ on the interference processing task significantly differed across groups with lower perfor...
<p>(A) Performance for groups of trials that differ in how far off the cued direction the test direc...
<p>A: Stacked difference scores (follow-up compared to session 1) for the five trained tasks for the...
(A) Average subjective effort rating. (B) Average perceived improvement rating. Ratings were made on...
<p>Each dot represents a subjects from the Cued group (in blue) or the Uncued group (in green). (a) ...
<p>Greater exploration associated with improved performance, across different participants.</p
Numerosity Comparison performance (accuracy, RT) of each group in congruent vs. incongruent trials.<...
<p>Subjects are assigned to groups ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ according to the accuracy of their performance.</...
<p>Comparing the characteristics of the participants in the intervention group (Group I) and control...
<p>Mean (standard deviation) are reported for quantitative parameters.</p><p>*Error effect: differen...
a<p>Mean (SD);</p>b<p>Median (IQR).</p><p>Group differences on performance based perfectionism tasks...
<p>The correlation between the number of positive, negative, and neutral statements as a function of...
<p>Subjects were first objectively divided into two groups a priori according to their performance o...
<p>Interaction between elaboration and the accuracy of competence attributions on group performance....
<p>Characteristics comparison of participants for five multiple imputation datasets.</p
Scaled d’ on the interference processing task significantly differed across groups with lower perfor...
<p>(A) Performance for groups of trials that differ in how far off the cued direction the test direc...
<p>A: Stacked difference scores (follow-up compared to session 1) for the five trained tasks for the...
(A) Average subjective effort rating. (B) Average perceived improvement rating. Ratings were made on...
<p>Each dot represents a subjects from the Cued group (in blue) or the Uncued group (in green). (a) ...
<p>Greater exploration associated with improved performance, across different participants.</p
Numerosity Comparison performance (accuracy, RT) of each group in congruent vs. incongruent trials.<...
<p>Subjects are assigned to groups ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ according to the accuracy of their performance.</...
<p>Comparing the characteristics of the participants in the intervention group (Group I) and control...
<p>Mean (standard deviation) are reported for quantitative parameters.</p><p>*Error effect: differen...
a<p>Mean (SD);</p>b<p>Median (IQR).</p><p>Group differences on performance based perfectionism tasks...
<p>The correlation between the number of positive, negative, and neutral statements as a function of...
<p>Subjects were first objectively divided into two groups a priori according to their performance o...
<p>Interaction between elaboration and the accuracy of competence attributions on group performance....
<p>Characteristics comparison of participants for five multiple imputation datasets.</p
Add to ORKG