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

Sequential modulation is the finding that the sizes of several selective-attention phenomena--namely, the Simon, flanker, and Stroop effects--are larger following congruent trials than following incongruent trials. In order to rule out relatively uninteresting explanations of sequential modulation that are based on a variety of stimulus- and response-repetition confounds, a four-alternative forced choice task must be used, such that all trials with any kind of repetition can be omitted from the analysis. When a four-alternative task is used, the question arises as to whether to have the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials be set by chance (and, therefore, be 25% congruent and 75% incongruent) or to raise the proportion of congruent trials to 50%, so that it matches the proportion of incongruent trials. In this observation, it is argued that raising the proportion of congruent trials to 50% should not be done. For theoretical, practical, and empirical reasons, having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative task aimed at providing unambiguous evidence of sequential modulation should be avoided.

Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation