My First Project

[Ashtyster]

Hi Atieh,

I fully agree with the reply you got from Michael. Just one more thing
to add. If you need to have the E-Prime script ready very soon, and
you don't feel like you've got enough time to learn by reading all the
manuals, you can try to search online for a sample script for a task
similar to yours. You can ask your colleagues for one as well. You can
look at the script, try to understand how it is organized, and then
modify it according to your needs (or even write a new one).

Good luck!

-Ashty

On Jul 8, 6:25 pm, Atieh <atieh.moonli... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
> I am college student and I have an internship in N.I.H . I really need
> to learn E_prime , but I can not make my first task right and I don't
> know which steps I did wrong . Can somebody describe each step of this
> task for me ? I would be grateful if somebody help me . This is the task :
>
> Multitask Badre Wagner Neuron 2004
>
> Figure 1. Task Schematic Depicting the Order and Timing of Events during
> Each Trial and Illustrating the Four Conditions at Response
>
> (A) All trials began with the serial presentation of three words
> followed by a bias cue. Subjects used this cue to select or prepare the
> expected response. Following a 3000 ms delay, a response cue was
> presented in red. The subject was given 1500 ms to respond. There were
> two types of Response cues, with each cueing either an Expected or
> Unexpected response, resulting in four conditions at response.
>
> (B) When a word (Repeat) cue was presented at response, subjects
> covertly repeated the word and pressed a button. On 75% of Repeat
> trials, the word cued the Expected response; on the remaining 25% of
> trials, the response was Unexpected.
>
> (C) When a number (Refresh) cue was presented, subjects covertly
> repeated the word from the memory set that corresponded to that number
> in ordinal position (e.g., "2" cued the second word). Again, on 75% of
> the trials the number cued the Expected response, and on 25% of the
> trials the response was Unexpected.
>
> On each trial, a 3 s delay followed presentation of the bias cue, and
> then a final response cue was presented to signal the target response to
> be immediately executed (Figure 1A). The response cue signaled either
> the expected or an unexpected response---a manipulation of response
> selection demands. Moreover, the cue stimulus either directly mapped
> onto a response or required access to recently active representations
> within working memory---a manipulation of refresh and
> subgoal/integration demands. These conditions and their implications for
> control processing are further detailed below.
> The sensitivity of PFC to "response selection" demands was tested by
> arranging a mismatch on conflict trials between the expected response,
> based on the bias cue, and the cued response (Figure 1B). On half of the
> trials, the response cue was a word (Repeat cue), and subjects were
> instructed to covertly repeat the word and press a button once having
> done so. The word was always one of the three words from that trial's
> memory set. Furthermore, 75% of the time the Repeat cue, and thus the
> response, was the same as the word that had been expected based on the
> bias cue presented prior to the delay and so was consistent with the
> Expected response (i.e., no response conflict). For the remaining 25% of
> Repeat trials, the response cue corresponded to one of the other words
> in the memory set, thus requiring an Unexpected response. Accordingly,
> during Unexpected trials, the prepared or prepotent response was
> incongruent with the response signaled by the response cue. Hence,
> analogous to the Stroop task, Repeat-Unexpected trials required
> selection of a response pathway based on bottom-up visual input in the
> face of a task-irrelevant, prepotent response (although, in contrast to
> Stroop, here the prepotent response was established by a top-down bias
> or selection process engaged upon presentation of the bias cue rather
> than a learned preexperimental association). Thus, for Repeat trials any
> sensitivity of PFC to expectation would reflect response conflict and
> response selection demands.
> To test the sensitivity of PFC to refresh and subgoaling/integration
> demands, we devised two additional conditions in which response conflict
> was present or absent in the face of a need to execute a subgoal
> entailing the integration of two cues, and to subsequently refresh a
> recently active representation (Raye et al., 2002). Specifically, in the
> Refresh condition, the response cue entailed a symbolic stimulus that
> required retrieval of a representation from within working memory, with
> some trials requiring an expected response and others requiring an
> unexpected response (Figure 1C). During the half of all events that were
> Refresh trials, the response cue was a number (Refresh cue), rather than
> a word. As with the bias cue, the Refresh cue referred to the ordinal
> position of one of the words. In response to the Refresh cue, subjects
> were to covertly repeat the corresponding word that was cued by the
> number (Raye et al., 2002) and to press a button once having done so.
> Hence, differential sensitivity to this condition over the Repeat
> condition might reflect processes engaged to refresh a recently active
> representation within working memory. Importantly, Refresh trials
> further required subgoaling/integration because the symbolic response
> cue had to be specified prior to response selection. That is, Refresh
> trials necessitated that the response cue be compared/integrated with
> the bias cue to determine if the prepared response was or was not the
> target response. This integration stage entailed execution of a subgoal
> en route to satisfying the global goal of executing a response
> independent of whether the response was expected or not, a distinction
> that differentiates this integration process from the hypothesized
> refresh process. Hence, to the extent that a region of PFC is engaged in
> refreshing, it should principally reveal a difference between
> Refresh-Unexpected and Repeat-Unexpected. Whereas, if a region of PFC is
> critical for subgoaling/integration, it should be sensitive to the need
> to Refresh regardless of whether the response is expected or unexpected,
> because both conditions require subgoaling and integration.
> In addition to the main effects of refreshing and
> subgoaling/integration, response conflict was also manipulated within
> the Refresh condition. As in the Repeat condition, for 75% of Refresh
> trials the number cued the same word as had been indicated by the bias
> cue, and so the response was Expected even though the representation
> cueing the response (a symbolic cue) differed from the prepared
> representation (the response word). For the remaining 25% of Refresh
> trials, the number cued one of the other two words, and so the response
> was Unexpected. Thus, as with the Repeat-Unexpected condition, the
> Refresh-Unexpected condition required a response in the presence of
> conflict from the prepared but irrelevant response.
>
>  0.gif
> 17KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "E-Prime" group.
To post to this group, send email to e-prime at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to e-prime+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/e-prime?hl=en.