Furthermore, little is known about the impact of repeated presentation on continuous behavioral ratings. Some hypotheses, such as the mere exposure effect [20] or perceptual fluency [21,22], suggest that repeated exposure to a stimulus should result in increased liking. In contrast, other accounts suggest that repetition causes habituation or boredom, resulting in decreased liking [23,24]. A third possibility is that repeated exposure may have different effects for different stimulus types [25] or may lead to changing time courses as attention shifts to different aspects of a stimulus. We therefore assessed the test-retest reliability of continuous rating time series across two exposures.
A Continuous Test movie download in mp4
An additional concern is that the very act of making a continuous judgment may affect the experience itself. As existing evidence for such interference is inconclusive [26,27], we included a direct test in our experimental design. Two separate groups participated in both test and retest sessions; while one (rate) group made continuous ratings in both sessions, the other (view) group made continuous ratings only in the retest session, but not the initial test session. If continuous judgments affect the experience, we would expect the overall judgments to differ across rate and view groups.
(A) Participants viewed videos of landscapes or dance performances for 30 seconds while making continuous ratings of the moment-to-moment enjoyment they were having. This was immediately followed by an overall rating indicating the intensity of their aesthetic experience of the clip. Both types of responses were made using a dial that controlled the slider display on the screen. (B) The rate group completed continuous and overall ratings in both test and retest sessions. (C) The view group gave overall ratings but not continuous ratings in the test session. In the retest session, participants in this group performed both types of ratings.
Examination of trial-by-trial continuous rating traces revealed large differences in individual responses, both across movies but also across participants. Within each participant, some clips were rated more dynamically than others (Fig 3A). In addition, different participants generated widely divergent continuous rating profiles for the same movie, ranging from strongly liked to strongly disliked, and from mostly static to strongly dynamic (Fig 3B). Surprisingly, there were even disagreements about the valence of specific moments, with some observers increasing their reported enjoyment at the same moment other observers decreased their reported enjoyment.
The distributions of the reliability values both with (A) Pearson correlations and (B) L2-norm values indicate that most participants showed good test-retest reliability with no difference across categories. (C) There was positive correlation between L2-norm values for overall ratings and median L2-norm values for continuous ratings per participants.
Overall, the distributions of mean rmsd values across participants were quite similar across sessions and categories (Fig 5A). To aid interpretation, an rmsd score was computed for a simulated logarithmic monotonic increase over the entire clip (Fig 5A, inline panel and vertical dashed red lines). This score was below even the lowest average rmsd value. Thus, even the participants with the least temporal variation produced more dynamic change (on average) than a simple logarithmic increase over the course of the movie. Using LMM regression with the retest session rmsd scores from each group as the dependent variable, we calculated the degree to which rmsd temporal variation was affected by stimulus category or group. This LMM resulted in a significant category by group interaction (Table 2) (B = -0.05, SE = 0.02, t = -2.77, p = 0.008)
Agreement for overall ratings changed from test to retest sessions, but in a manner dependent on whether observers made continuous ratings in the test session or not. An LMM regression analysis of MM1 agreement scores for the overall ratings (see Methods, Analysis) found no main effects of stimulus category, session or group, but did reveal a session by group interaction effect (B = 0.04, SE = 0.01, t = 2.85, p = 0.006). (S1 Table). Tukey corrected post-hoc comparisons revealed a decrease in retest session agreement values for only the rate group (TestRate vs RetestRate, t = 2.96, p = 0.02).
Most participants produced highly reliable overall aesthetic judgments of video clips across test-retest sessions. This is in agreement with previous reports of highly stable judgments of images for healthy young adults [17,55]. Reliability of continuous ratings varied more markedly across participants, though was fairly consistent across categories. This suggests that the degree of reliability over repeated presentations of videos may be another strongly individual characteristic. The high correlation between overall and continuous reliability measures supports this claim, potentially hinting at similar sources driving these judgments. Note that both methods used to quantify the degree of reliability [Pearson correlations (more sensitive to global changes) and L2-norm measure (a good indicator of local changes and the magnitude of the continuous ratings)] led to the same general conclusion.
You may recall that at the time of its release, the A6000 boasted a very fast autofocus system capable of locking focus in 0.06s. Not that you'd notice it when using the camera, but Sony claims the A6300 is even faster, capable of locking focus in 0.05s. According to Sony, this makes the A6300 the world's fastest autofocusing camera. In addition to being a fraction of a second faster, the A6300 also includes Eye AF when shooting with continuous autofocus. You can now also use the focus magnifier when using autofocus, which is greater for precisely focusing still life images.
The BTWT is a continuous-flow tunnel with a Mach range of Mach 0.3 up to Mach 1.1. It has an 8- by 12-foot test section with 2-foot corner fillets; a dynamic pressure range from 0 to 840 pound/feet; controllable stagnation temperature and dew point; sting, swept strut, plate, and floor mountings; internal and external balances; electronic pressure scanning (EPS) up to 1,536 ports; and an inventory of EPS modules of appropriate load capacity and qualitative and quantitative flow imaging tools. An airflow facility is available for calibrating ducts and flow-through and powered nacelles.
Microsoft PowerPoint offers features to record audio narration and export it as a video. PowerPoint records audio slide-by-slide rather than in one continuous file, allowing creators to easily re-record a slide if they make a mistake or need to change something later. Exporting as a video and uploading to Kaltura or Canvas for streaming is advantageous since it standardizes file types, doesn't require a download to view, is in a format that can be captioned, and allows viewers to navigate more efficiently.
Each screen can also be animated using an optional movie file by placing a MP4 movie with the screen's name in the photo booth images folder e.g. ready.mp4 for the ready.jpg screen. MP4 animations have the same looping, sizing and positioning options as animated GIFs e.g. to play a movie file in a continuous loop in the ready screen name the file ready_loop.mp4.
Movie files are played on the background layer and will appear behind the live view display. A single continuously looping movie file can be played in the background of each screen by naming it background_loop.mp4. The background movie will be played unless there is a movie file with the current screen name. 2ff7e9595c
Comentários