English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

When a random rove is used in a perceptual task to control the influence of an unwanted cue that may confound the decision strategy of primary interest, the effectiveness of the rove is determined by its range. Green [Profile Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988)] provided a formula which allows experimenters to determine the roving range required to ensure that the listeners relying on the unwanted cue cannot exceed a pre-defined percentage of correct responses in a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice experiment. Here, Green's analysis is extended to the yes-no and m-alternative, forced-choice paradigms (m&gt;2).

Limiting unwanted cues via random rove applied to the yes-no and multiple-alternative forced choice paradigms