scholarly journals Effect of preference conditioning in the anticipatory contrast effect in rats.

Author(s):  
Mikita Nishikawa ◽  
Tohru Taniuchi
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aastha Kukreja ◽  
Byunghoon Kang ◽  
Seungmin Han ◽  
Moo-Kwang Shin ◽  
Hye Young Son ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

1995 ◽  
Vol 36 (4-6) ◽  
pp. 396-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lönnemark ◽  
Anders Magnusson

In a double blind randomised study 3 different concentrations of iohexol for bowel opacification at CT of the abdomen were compared. Iohexol in a concentration of 4.5 mg I/ml, 6.75 mg I/ml and 9 mg I/ml was used. No significant differences between the 3 preparations of contrast media were found regarding the contrast effect, the distribution or patient tolerance. When using iohexol as a bowel contrast medium at CT the concentration of 4.5 mg I/ml is sufficient for bowel opacification.


2021 ◽  
pp. 004728752110303
Author(s):  
Yin-Hui Cheng ◽  
Shih-Chieh Chuang ◽  
Molly Chien-Jung Huang ◽  
Sang-Ting Weng

This study brings together prior and subsequent unplanned buying behaviors by investigating the large, albeit implicit, effect of the former on the latter in the tourism shopping context. The results of five experiments suggest that prior buying prices form a reference point that stimulates tourists’ unplanned buying intentions because of the contrast between prior and additional unplanned buying prices. The bigger (smaller) the former is, the bigger (smaller) the latter will be. However, once the illusion is eliminated, the contrast effect disappears. The study offers several theoretical contributions. It posits that prior buying prices affect the price evaluation of additional unplanned buying behaviors and intentions. The elimination of the illusion removes the effect of the former on the latter. The marketing and managerial implications of persuasive strategies to promote tourism consumption are discussed.


1975 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 791-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Abresch ◽  
Viktor Sarris

Perceptual contrast effect was studied from two points of view, as a special anchor effect and as a special figural aftereffect. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of stimulus onset asynchrony on contrast and assimilation effects, induced and measured by different psychophysical methods. Stimuli were circular beams of light projected on screens (Delboef type of illusion). When anchor and series stimuli were shown and the latter were judged by means of a rating scale, stimulus onset asychrony had no substantial influence on the contrast effect (Exp. I). When the constant method was applied, however, the asynchrony altered the shape of the contrast effect considerably (Exp. II).


1992 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 961-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Knierim ◽  
D. C. van Essen

1. We recorded responses from neurons in area V1 of the alert macaque monkey to textured patterns modeled after stimuli used in psychophysical experiments of pop-out. Neuronal responses to a single oriented line segment placed within a cell's classical receptive field (CRF) were compared with responses in which the center element was surrounded by rings of elements placed entirely outside the CRF. The orientations of the surround elements either matched the center element, were orthogonal to it, or were random. 2. The addition of the textured surround tended to suppress the response to the center element by an average of 34%. Overall, almost 80% of the 122 cells analyzed in detail were significantly suppressed by at least one of the texture surrounds. 3. Cells tended to respond more strongly to a stimulus in which there was a contrast in orientation between the center and surround than to a stimulus lacking such contrast. The average difference was 9% of the response to the optimally oriented center element alone. For the 32% of the cells showing a statistically significant orientation contrast effect, the average difference was 28%. 4. Both the general suppression and orientation contrast effects originated from surround regions at the ends of the center bar as well as regions along the sides of the center bar. 5. The amount of suppression induced by the texture surround decreased as the density of the texture elements decreased. 6. Both the general suppression and the orientation contrast effects appeared early in the population response to the stimuli. The general suppression effect took approximately 7 ms to develop, whereas the orientation contrast effect took 18-20 ms to develop. 7. These results are consistent with a possible functional role of V1 cells in the mediation of perceptual pop-out and in the segregation of texture borders. Possible anatomic substrates of the effects are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document