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. Heterogeneity of Investors and Asset Pricing in a Risk-Value World2. A simple enquiry on heterogeneous lending rates and lending behaviour
3. Manufacturing Earnings and Cycles: New Evidence
4. Workforce or Workfare?
5. The name is absent
6. Food Prices and Overweight Patterns in Italy
7. Gender and headship in the twenty-first century
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Strategic monetary policy in a monetary union with non-atomistic wage setters