Review



anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests  (GraphPad Software Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    GraphPad Software Inc anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests
    a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures <t>ANOVA</t> on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < <t>0.05,</t> <t>FDR</t> corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
    Anova Followed By False Discovery Rate (Fdr) Multiple Comparison Tests, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Event boundaries shape temporal organization of memory by resetting temporal context"

    Article Title: Event boundaries shape temporal organization of memory by resetting temporal context

    Journal: Nature Communications

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28216-9

    a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
    Figure Legend Snippet: a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Techniques Used: Sequencing

    a Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 2. The sequence of 36 images was segmented as 4 items per event. Three pair types were tested for recency judgments, marked by red, light blue, and blue square brackets, representing within-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Within Lag1 in the figure), across-event pairs with three intervening items (short for Across Lag3 in the figure) and across-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Across Lag1 in the figure), respectively. b Box plots of group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs for lag1 and lag3 ( n = 27). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant effect of Pair Type (F(1.448, 37.64) = 18.63, p < 0.001, η 2 = 25.47%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within-event pairs than across-event pairs (t(26) = 4.820, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected), and for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected). Numbers in red denote event boundaries. The boxes show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
    Figure Legend Snippet: a Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 2. The sequence of 36 images was segmented as 4 items per event. Three pair types were tested for recency judgments, marked by red, light blue, and blue square brackets, representing within-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Within Lag1 in the figure), across-event pairs with three intervening items (short for Across Lag3 in the figure) and across-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Across Lag1 in the figure), respectively. b Box plots of group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs for lag1 and lag3 ( n = 27). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant effect of Pair Type (F(1.448, 37.64) = 18.63, p < 0.001, η 2 = 25.47%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within-event pairs than across-event pairs (t(26) = 4.820, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected), and for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected). Numbers in red denote event boundaries. The boxes show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Techniques Used: Sequencing



    Similar Products

    anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests  (GraphPad Software Inc)
    90
    GraphPad Software Inc anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests
    a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures <t>ANOVA</t> on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < <t>0.05,</t> <t>FDR</t> corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
    Anova Followed By False Discovery Rate (Fdr) Multiple Comparison Tests, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anova followed by false discovery rate (fdr) multiple comparison tests - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Journal: Nature Communications

    Article Title: Event boundaries shape temporal organization of memory by resetting temporal context

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28216-9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: a Experimental task. 36 grey-scaled trial-unique object images embedded in a coloured frame were sequentially presented to participants. In the boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for six consecutive images before switching to another one, while in the no boundary condition, the colour of the frame was consistent for all 36 objects. Each object image was presented to participants for 2.5 s, preceded by 0.5 s fixation cross and followed by 2 s inter-trial interval, during which the coloured frame stayed on the screen. In the boundary condition, event boundaries were defined as the trial in which the colour of the frame updated with the co-occurring object. Immediately after encoding the 36 images, participants made recency judgments on pairs of items from the just-encoded sequence. Each recency judgment was then followed by a confidence rating for each decision on a four-point scale. Participants had a self-paced short break after finishing each sequence. The images used were taken from publicly available dataset (Bank of Standardized stimuli, BOSS, https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ , © 2010 Brodeur et al. & © 2014 Brodeur et al.) , . b Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 1. Numbers in red depict event boundaries. There were two pair types marked by yellow and blue square brackets, denoting within-event pairs and across-event pairs respectively (short for Boundary Within and Boundary Across in the figure respectively). The two pair types were separated by the same number of intervening items. In the no boundary condition, item pairs took identical list positions as in the boundary condition (short for No Boundary Within and No Boundary Across respectively). c Group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs in the boundary vs. no boundary conditions in Experiment 1 ( n = 26). A repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant interaction between Condition and List Position (F (1, 25) = 18.05, p < 0.001, η 2 = 6.364%), as well as a main effect of List Position (F(1,25) = 5.339, p = 0.0294, η 2 = 3.452%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within than across-event pairs in the boundary condition (t(25) = 5.216, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), and was significantly better for within-event pairs (t(25) = 2.418, p = 0.0232, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected) and significantly worse for across-event pairs (t(25) = −4.022, p < 0.001, two-sided q < 0.05, FDR corrected) in the boundary condition compared to matched pairs in the no boundary condition. The boxes in box plots show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Article Snippet: To test for the statistical significance of the results from empirical experiments 1–4, ANOVA followed by false discovery rate (FDR) multiple comparison tests was performed in GraphPad Prism 8.

    Techniques: Sequencing

    a Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 2. The sequence of 36 images was segmented as 4 items per event. Three pair types were tested for recency judgments, marked by red, light blue, and blue square brackets, representing within-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Within Lag1 in the figure), across-event pairs with three intervening items (short for Across Lag3 in the figure) and across-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Across Lag1 in the figure), respectively. b Box plots of group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs for lag1 and lag3 ( n = 27). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant effect of Pair Type (F(1.448, 37.64) = 18.63, p < 0.001, η 2 = 25.47%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within-event pairs than across-event pairs (t(26) = 4.820, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected), and for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected). Numbers in red denote event boundaries. The boxes show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Journal: Nature Communications

    Article Title: Event boundaries shape temporal organization of memory by resetting temporal context

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28216-9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: a Schematic diagram of the task in Experiment 2. The sequence of 36 images was segmented as 4 items per event. Three pair types were tested for recency judgments, marked by red, light blue, and blue square brackets, representing within-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Within Lag1 in the figure), across-event pairs with three intervening items (short for Across Lag3 in the figure) and across-event pairs with one intervening item (short for Across Lag1 in the figure), respectively. b Box plots of group averaged temporal order memory for within and across-event pairs for lag1 and lag3 ( n = 27). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the accuracy of recency judgments showed a significant effect of Pair Type (F(1.448, 37.64) = 18.63, p < 0.001, η 2 = 25.47%). Simple effect analyses showed that TOM was significantly better for within-event pairs than across-event pairs (t(26) = 4.820, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected for multiple comparisons), for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected), and for within-event pairs at lag1 than for across-event pairs at lag3 (t(26) = 4.524, p < 0.001, two-sided, q < 0.05, FDR corrected). Numbers in red denote event boundaries. The boxes show the inter-quartile range (IQR) and the median. Whiskers in box plots represent the minimum and maximum in the dataset. The asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at p < 0.05. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

    Article Snippet: To test for the statistical significance of the results from empirical experiments 1–4, ANOVA followed by false discovery rate (FDR) multiple comparison tests was performed in GraphPad Prism 8.

    Techniques: Sequencing