My First Project

[atieh bakhtiar]

Hi All
Thank you for your answers ... I will do things that you said ...I
understood that it was odd to ask for whole project so I will ask my
problems next time :)
Cheers :)



On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Ashtyster <ashtyster at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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<e-prime%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/e-prime?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Atieh Bakhtiar

-- 
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/eprime/attachments/20100708/0da995cd/attachment.htm>