55
0.31%±0.02% SEM, paired t-test with 11 degrees of freedom, p=0.0001). The response
in the STSms to each of the Six trials types was also entered into a three-factor mixed-
effect ANOVA with stimulus modality (tactile, auditory, tactile-auditory) and intensity
(weak, strong) as fixed factors and subject as a random factor. The most significant
effect was modality (F(2,22)=10.3, p=0.0007) driven by the increased response to
multisensory stimulation. There was also a significant effect of intensity (F( 1,11)=16.1,
p=0.002), reflecting a larger response to strong compared with weak stimuli
(0.37%±0.02% vs. 0.29%±0.02%). The interaction between modality and intensity was
not significant (F(2,22)=0.1, p=0.9) showing that the degree of multisensory
enhancement did not differ between weak and strong multisensory trials.
More intriguing information
1. New Evidence on the Puzzles. Results from Agnostic Identification on Monetary Policy and Exchange Rates.2. ‘Goodwill is not enough’
3. Corporate Taxation and Multinational Activity
4. WP 36 - Women's Preferences or Delineated Policies? The development or part-time work in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom
5. Rural-Urban Economic Disparities among China’s Elderly
6. DIVERSITY OF RURAL PLACES - TEXAS
7. The name is absent
8. The Economic Value of Basin Protection to Improve the Quality and Reliability of Potable Water Supply: Some Evidence from Ecuador
9. Der Einfluß der Direktdemokratie auf die Sozialpolitik
10. Life is an Adventure! An agent-based reconciliation of narrative and scientific worldviews