Differences in 5 Hz sAM detection thresholds are not attributable to measures of training or attention.

Abstract

<p>(A) Higher sAM detection thresholds in CHLs were not due to better training, as CHLs reached slightly better compentence during training than CTRs, and criterion performance for detection of a fully-modulated sAM did not correlate with sAM detection thresholds for either group. (B) Proficiency with the task during initial testing, measured by d′ levels for fully-modulated sAM, did not explain differences in sAM detection threshold. (C) False alarm rates, a measure of attention, were not different across groups. (D) The number of trials per session, a measure of motivation, also did not explain differences in sAM detection threshold. <i>Black</i>  =  CTR; <i>Orange</i>  =  CHL.</p

Similar works

Full text

thumbnail-image

FigShare

redirect
Last time updated on 16/03/2018

This paper was published in FigShare.

Having an issue?

Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.