Deployed a70ed58 with MkDocs version: 1.6.0

03_cogdataset/index.html

@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@
     </li>
     <li class="toctree-l3"><a class="reference internal" href="#procedure">Procedure</a>
         <ul>
-    <li class="toctree-l4"><a class="reference internal" href="#ieeg-related-modifications-of-the-design">iEEG related modifications of the design</a>
+    <li class="toctree-l4"><a class="reference internal" href="#ieeg-related-modifications-of-the-design">iEEG Related Modifications of the Design</a>
     </li>
         </ul>
     </li>
@@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ <h3 id="procedure">Procedure</h3>
 <p>Stimuli were presented sequentially, all supra-threshold, with half being task-relevant and the other half task-irrelevant. Only one stimulus was shown on the screen at any given time. To define task relevance, subjects were instructed to detect (press a button; non-speeded response) two targets from different categories, regardless of their orientation. This online reporting enabled an explicit assessment of subjects’ performance, engaging report-related areas for later analysis. Each block began with notification of the two target stimuli, either pictorial (faces and objects) or symbolic (letters and false fonts), creating a clear distinction between relevant and irrelevant stimuli. At the start of each block, specific target stimuli were revealed with instructions such as “detect face A and object B” or "detect letter C and false-font D." Targets did not repeat across blocks. Each run included two blocks of the Face/Object task and two blocks of the Letter/False-font task, with the order counterbalanced across runs. Subjects were instructed to maintain central fixation throughout each trial. Gaze was monitored online through an eye tracker, with repeated calibrations ensuring good quality data.</p>
 <p>Each block comprised stimuli from all four categories, with each stimulus displayed for 500, 1000, or 1500 ms, followed by a blank interval, ensuring a consistent trial duration of 2000 ms. To  avoid  periodic  presentation  of  the  stimuli, random jitter was added to the end of each trial (mean inter-trial interval of 400 ms, jittered 200-2000 ms, with truncated  exponential  distribution). Within each block, three trial types were presented: i) Task Relevant Targets, consisting of the specific stimuli participants were tasked with detecting; ii) Task Relevant Non-Targets, encompassing stimuli from relevant categories that were not designated targets; and iii) Task Irrelevant Stimuli, comprising stimuli from the remaining categories.</p>
 <p>Trial division was pseudorandomized with respect to two factors: the assignment of non-target stimuli to a miniblock, and the number of trials with specific durations within each task-relevance level. The assignment of non-targets was restricted by two constraints: i) Each stimulus was presented an equal number of times as a non-target stimulus (and as an irrelevant one) throughout the experiment. ii) Non-targets were, by definition, different from the targets in that specific miniblock. To meet these constraints, two pseudorandomized versions were made where the targets and non-target stimuli of each miniblock were determined. Three additional versions were prepared for each target/non-target division to balance the duration division between categories and orientation. In each version, slight imbalances (maximum difference of four trials) existed between the different durations for each condition (targets, non-targets, irrelevant). This imbalance was a necessary consequence of keeping the balance in duration and category across orientation and across categories as the numbers were not evenly divisible by three. The imbalances canceled out over the entire experiment so there was a perfect duration balance across the experiment: an equal amount of stimuli were presented for 500, 1000 and 1500 ms durations. The imbalances between durations within each relevant condition were balanced across the three versions. In total, six different versions were assigned to the subjects in consecutive order, repeating every six subjects. To get more details, please see the “Trial counts” section in <a href="https://osf.io/gm3vd">COGITATE Preregistration, v4</a>.</p>
-<h4 id="ieeg-related-modifications-of-the-design">iEEG related modifications of the design</h4>
+<h4 id="ieeg-related-modifications-of-the-design">iEEG Related Modifications of the Design</h4>
 <p>Only half of the stimuli were used as targets for the iEEG experiments. The selection of target faces kept the balance of gender and ethnicity. Letters were chosen in equal amounts from the first and second parts of the alphabet, and the corresponding false-fonts were used. All stimuli were presented as relevant non-targets and irrelevant stimuli, matching the designs of the aforementioned procedure.</p>
 <h3 id="m-eeg-data-acquisition">M-EEG Data Acquisition</h3>
 <p>M-EEG recordings were acquired at the Centre for Human Brain Health (CHBH) of University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, and at the Center for MRI Research of Peking University (PKU) in China.</p>

index.html

@@ -202,5 +202,5 @@ <h1 id="welcome-to-the-cogitate-data-release-documentation">Welcome to the Cogit
 
 <!--
 MkDocs version : 1.6.0
-Build Date UTC : 2024-05-24 16:44:39.069161+00:00
+Build Date UTC : 2024-05-24 16:48:41.161292+00:00
 -->