A Lazy Male's Technique To The DZNeP Profits

high specific). Memory specificity and generalization During the subsequent test of generalization, outcome expectancy ratings were obtained for the S+, the six GSs, and the S?, which are visualized for the first of three test blocks in Figure ?Figure33 (left panel). In the first generalization test block, the mean outcome expectancy ratings for the high BI-6727 specific participants were 4.89 (S+), 5.00 (GS1), 5.21 (GS2), 2.93 (GS3), 1.86 (GS4), 1.07 (GS5), 1.14 (GS6), 0.54 (S?). For the low specific participants, this was 6.17 (S+), 7.07 (GS1), 5.67 (GS2), 6.87 (GS3), 3.07 (GS4), 0.93 (GS5), 1.13 (GS6), 1.53 (S?). The pattern of the data, with decreases in outcome expectancy as the GSs become increasingly dissimilar to the S+, suggests the presence of generalization. The relationship between memory specificity and generalization was examined using a repeated measures MANOVA with Specificity (low specific, high specific) as between-subjects variable, and Block (Block 1�C3) and Stimulus (S+, GS1, GS2, GS3, GS4, GS5, GS6, S?) as within-subjects variables. Analyses revealed a main effect of Stimulus over the three test blocks, F(7,189) = 9.64, p 3 Mean outcome expectancy ratings for S+, S?, and the six GSs (+SEM) of the first generalization test block as a function of memory specificity (high vs. low memory specificity) for (A) healthy individuals (left panel, Study 1), and (B) anxiety ... Discussion With respect to discrimination learning, the pattern of the data suggests that high specific individuals performed better than low specific participants. However, statistical analyses provided no evidence for differences in discrimination learning as a function of memory specificity in healthy participants. The overall Specificity �� Stimulus interaction was only supported at trend level, which may, however, be due to low power because of a relatively small sample size.