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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Four groups of human subjects were given 360 classical eyeblink conditioning trials. All groups received the same UCS (unconditioned stimulus) intensity on[Formula: see text] (nonconditioned response) trials but differed in the intensity presented on CR trials. Response probability increased as a positive function of UCS intensity on CR trials. Phase 1 of the two-phase model was longer when no UCS was presented on CR trials, but did not differ in duration among the remaining three groups. Most subjects could be described with a single operator in Phase 2, the operator limit increasing as a positive function of CR-contingent UCS intensity. For subjects requiring different operator limits on CR and[Formula: see text] trials, the latter was lower with high CR-trial intensities but higher with low CR-trialintensities. The results were interpreted to be more consistent with drive theory than with "law-of-effect" or two-factor theories.

Manipulation of response-contingent unconditioned-stimulus intensity in human eyelid conditioning: A two-phase model analysis