<p>Two-way ANOVA (treatment × drug) failed to demonstrate any drug or treatment effects, and no significant interaction between these two factors was detected. Therefore, we failed to demonstrate any OT-related effect on attentional-inhibitory control. The error bars represent 1 standard error.</p
<p>Mean reaction times and mean stay percentages as a function of feedback valence and magnitude, an...
<p>The panel illustrates the difference in PANSS total clinical scale between the end of the trial a...
<p>A. Average detection performance. B. Average reaction times of the celebrity detection task. C. E...
<p>A, happy face condition. B, angry face condition. C, ambiguous face condition. D, neutral face co...
<p>Only the group difference for the flanker conflict (executive control) effect reached significanc...
<p><b>A.</b> Success rates (SRs) and reaction times (RTs) as a function of expectancy and Flanker co...
<p>Treatment experience during the conditioning session (<b>A</b>). Pain ratings (mean VAS score ± S...
<p>After an interval of at least 2 weeks, the second trial was conducted. The order of the two condi...
<p>(A) Average values of the amount of inhibition computed for D1 and D2 conditions during force and...
<p>Reaction time data for each stimulus discriminability, orientation, and session (reward, stimulus...
<p>Error bars indicate standard errors of mean. The result of two-way ANOVA showed significant main ...
<p>Bars represent the association between PA at (<i>t-1</i>) and PA at (<i>t</i>) (level of momentar...
<p>Error rates on ‘competitive trials’ for each stimulation condition: LTP relev = high-frequency re...
Poor attentional focus harms the estimation of time within the seconds-to-minutes range, i.e. interv...
This study examined the hypothesis (Jones, Cho, Nystrom, Cohen, & Braver, 2002) that the amount of c...
<p>Mean reaction times and mean stay percentages as a function of feedback valence and magnitude, an...
<p>The panel illustrates the difference in PANSS total clinical scale between the end of the trial a...
<p>A. Average detection performance. B. Average reaction times of the celebrity detection task. C. E...
<p>A, happy face condition. B, angry face condition. C, ambiguous face condition. D, neutral face co...
<p>Only the group difference for the flanker conflict (executive control) effect reached significanc...
<p><b>A.</b> Success rates (SRs) and reaction times (RTs) as a function of expectancy and Flanker co...
<p>Treatment experience during the conditioning session (<b>A</b>). Pain ratings (mean VAS score ± S...
<p>After an interval of at least 2 weeks, the second trial was conducted. The order of the two condi...
<p>(A) Average values of the amount of inhibition computed for D1 and D2 conditions during force and...
<p>Reaction time data for each stimulus discriminability, orientation, and session (reward, stimulus...
<p>Error bars indicate standard errors of mean. The result of two-way ANOVA showed significant main ...
<p>Bars represent the association between PA at (<i>t-1</i>) and PA at (<i>t</i>) (level of momentar...
<p>Error rates on ‘competitive trials’ for each stimulation condition: LTP relev = high-frequency re...
Poor attentional focus harms the estimation of time within the seconds-to-minutes range, i.e. interv...
This study examined the hypothesis (Jones, Cho, Nystrom, Cohen, & Braver, 2002) that the amount of c...
<p>Mean reaction times and mean stay percentages as a function of feedback valence and magnitude, an...
<p>The panel illustrates the difference in PANSS total clinical scale between the end of the trial a...
<p>A. Average detection performance. B. Average reaction times of the celebrity detection task. C. E...