FLT3 inhibitor: The Impeccable Benefit!

9��) and 8 mm (0.4��), selleck products respectively. All stimuli were presented in white on a black background at a viewing distance of 1.2 m. General procedure The experiments were run on a CRT controlled by a PC. The participants were seated in a semi-darkened room 1.2 m from the screen. The participant started each trial by first fixating the fixation cross and when ready pressing a key, which immediately released a brief 200-ms exposure of the stimulus frame. The stimulus frame was immediately succeeded by a 500-ms exposure of a frame with eight masks, one at each of the eight possible stimulus positions (see Figure ?Figure11). The participant��s task was to indicate whether a pre-designated target was present in the stimulus frame. Participants responded present by pressing the right key and absent by pressing the left key of a response box. A short warning sound was given as feedback when an error was made. FIGURE 1 Procedure used in the training and test phase of Experiment 1 and in the training phase of Experiment 2. Training For each participant, one of the six strings served as the target throughout the training phase, while the other five letter strings served as distractors. On each trial, the target appeared in the display with a probability of 0.5. One session consisted Thalidomide of 2,000 trials (100 blocks of 20 trials each) and took about 2 h. For each trial, three strings were presented and the distractors were randomly drawn without replacement from the set of five distractor strings. Two training sessions were run during two successive days. Test On the third day of the experiment, target and distractor sets were redefined. One of the five strings that had been used as distractors during the training was selected to be the new target. The new distractor set consisted of the four remaining former distractors plus the former target string. One test session was run with the new target and distractor sets. The former target appeared (once per display) in one half of the stimulus displays. Except as noted the procedure during the test phase was the same as during the training. Thus, the probability that the former target appeared in a stimulus display was exactly the same as selleck screening library the probability that any other particular member of the new distractor set appeared in the display. RESULTS The error rates were analyzed by use of signal-detection theory (Green and Swets, 1966) to disentangle variations in sensitivity (measured by parameter d��) from variations in response bias (measured by the natural logarithm of parameter ��). Learning curves for each participant are shown with respect to both sensitivity (Figure ?Figure22, Panel A) and bias (Figure ?Figure22, Panel B). The data were split into subblocks of 500 trials each and the following analyses were also done with this division of the data. A linear regression analysis across the five participants showed a significant increase in sensitivity during the training period [F(1,3) = 16.72, p