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. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION2. The name is absent
3. Palvelujen vienti ja kansainvälistyminen
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), CHERE Working Paper 2007/6
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Evolving robust and specialized car racing skills
10. The name is absent