Accepted Manuscript Sample Clauses

The 'Accepted Manuscript' clause defines the version of a scholarly work that has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, but has not yet undergone final editing, formatting, or typesetting by the publisher. This version typically includes all revisions required by reviewers and is often used for early online release or institutional repository deposit. The clause clarifies which version of the manuscript may be shared or archived, helping to manage copyright, access rights, and compliance with open access policies.
Accepted Manuscript immediately on acceptance: sharing of the Accepted Manuscript by an author:
View SourceView Similar (8)
Accepted Manuscript. 3 or not-for-profit sectors. ACCEP ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ CRIP T 4 5 Conflict of Interest: Two authors (X,X) have a material interest in the ▇▇▇▇® telerehabilitation system. 6 They have not been directly involved in the collection or analysis of data in this study.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Accepted Manuscript. The manuscript of the Article that has been accepted for publication and which typically includes author-incorporated changes suggested during submission, peer review, and editor-author communications. The Accepted Manuscript should not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the Published Journal Article. To check the embargo period for the journal, go to ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/about/policies-and-standards/sharing#3-accepted-manuscript.The publisher has agreements with certain funding agencies that may permit shorter embargo periods and/or different sharing guidelines. To learn more about the publisher's policies and agreements with such agencies or institutions go to ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/open-access/agreements. The definitive final record of published research that appears or will appear in the journal and embodies all value-adding publisher activities, including peer review co-ordination, copy-editing, formatting, (if relevant) pagination, and online enrichment.
View Source
Accepted Manuscript for the response times. In the following paragraphs we discuss how these main effects and interactions resulting from the current design fit with previous evidence concerning agreement processing, emphasizing the three different circuits where the interactions emerged. Firstly, a bilateral widespread network results from the contrast Number Match > Number Mismatch, including regions such as the anterior and middle cingulate cortex, the precuneus-cuneus, the dorsal part of the middle frontal gyrus and the angular gyrus. It is not surprising that different kinds of agreement dependency share this pattern of response. The increases in the activation of the dorsal part of the middle frontal gyrus often covaries with significant increases in the de-activation patterns of the anterior cingulate cortex (the hub of the conflict monitoring system, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, 2007; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2007) and the angular gyrus (the sub-region associated with the default mode network, (see Seghier et al., 2012 for a revision of this topic). The coupling between these regions probably reflects the engagement of conflict monitoring mechanisms and the subsequent re-analysis and repair processes triggered by the grammatical error detection, a common process taking place for both types of dependencies. The involvement of this monitoring system in the processing of mismatches7 is consistent with previous evidence (Bambini et al., 2011; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2004; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2003; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2008; Ni et al., 2000; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2005; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2014; 2011; 2010; ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇; Ye and Zhou, 2009) and may subserve the generation of the P600 effect typically reported for this type of manipulations (▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2011b; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2011; ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Carreiras, 2007). In line with this hypothesis, previous evidence has demonstrated the contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex in the generation of this late positive response (Du et al., 2013; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2010). This amodal monitoring system, probably working in parallel to the language-specific machinery, seems to be enhanced whenever an inconsistency is detected, independently of its nature, in order to prevent behavioural mistakes. The involvement of this monitoring system during the processing of these two types of dependencies is also 7 These regions exhibited negative responses patterns (de-activation) compared to the fixation baseline co...
View Source
Accepted Manuscript. This pattern of activation in the left temporal cortex is in line with previous evidence showing that the involvement of this region seems to be extended to different domains of language processing. Previous evidence supports a posterior- to- anterior functional gradient within this anatomical region, proposing a distinction between syntactic and semantic processes. However, the specific role of each functional sub-region is still under dispute (see Friederici, 2011 for a revision of this topic). For instance, some authors argue that the anterior temporal cortex (STG-MTG) plays a particular role in storing, activating and retrieving lexico-semantic, categorical and contextual information (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2008), in contrast to the syntactic structure building processes attributed to the posterior portion of the left temporal cortex (see Bornkessel- Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky, 2013 for a review). However, there is also evidence that supports a completely opposite point of view, where lexico-semantic processes are represented in the most posterior portion of the left MTG (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; Baggio and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇ et al., 2008); , whereas the anterior part of this region subserves syntactic processing (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2009). Other authors, attempting to reconcile the conflicting evidence, have suggested that the most anterior part of the left temporal cortex is involved in the integration of syntactic and semantic information (▇▇▇ et al., 2008). The inclusion of both nominal and subject-verb agreement in the same experimental design has allowed us to distinguish between these contradictory perspectives. The processing of these two different types of dependencies implies the detection of local relations among constituents to construct syntactic structures (i.e. syntactic building processing). This process implies the retrieval of lexical and morpho-syntactic information from the elements forming both types of dependencies. Despite the difference in the nature of these two types of information, our results point to the posterior part of the MTG-STG as the major candidate to mediate these common operations, as no differential response emerged in this region from the mismatch vs. match contrast. This idea is consistent with previous results (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; Baggio and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; Hagoort, 2003) and corroborates the claim advanced by Hagoort (2003) in the MUC model of sentence processing about the critical role of...
View Source
Accepted Manuscript. Authors’ notes
View Source
Accepted Manuscript. It could therefore be that the reading of a number mismatch between a determiner and a noun blocks the building of a basic syntactic unit, impeding further analytical steps such as conceptual and lexical integration of the two words (cf. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Carreiras, 2005). In contrast, the more complex representation underlying subject-verb pairs could facilitate the establishment of a relation between the two words even in the presence of mismatching number values, since the processing system would be still able to determine that the ill-formed pair refers to a dancing event. From a neuro-anatomical perspective, the qualitative differences between the two dependencies predicted by these theoretical accounts can emerge in qualitative and/or quantitative terms. In the former case, difference should be reflected in the engagement of distinct neural networks that support the two types of agreement, while in the latter, greater or lesser neural responses within the same network would be found. In addition, differences between the two patterns (nominal and subject-verb agreement) may also arise from the different interpretive outcomes that the syntactic integration of these two types of structures produces. While in the former case interpretation leads to associating a linguistic stimulus (“El anillo”) to a referent in the external world (a circle-shaped object), interpretation of a subject-verb agreement relation (“Él baila”) implies building a richer semantic representation that encompasses not only the identification of entities in the external world, but also their thematic and discourse roles in the dancing event that the agreement relation describes. This could therefore lead to differential patterns of activation that qualitatively and/or quantitatively differ across nominal and subject-verb agreement in areas that have been associated with semantic integration and conceptual processing, such as the anterior temporal cortex and/or the angular gyrus (Binder and ▇▇▇▇▇, 2011; Binder et al., 2009; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky, 2013; ▇▇▇ et al., 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2014). In parallel to these language-specific operations, an amodal conflict-monitoring system operates, whose function is to prevent behavioral mistakes by monitoring the presence of conflicting cues (for a discussion of this topic see 2011; 2010; van de Meerendonk et al., 2009). Previous findings point to the anterior cingulate cortex (▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, 2007; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2007; 2011; 2...
View Source
Accepted Manuscript. In the case of the mediation analyses, both models (the mediator model and the response model) were tested for the three clusters (left inferior frontal, left temporal and precuneus-cuneus). These analyses allow us to identify the potential effect of the task difficulty over the causal pathway between the treatment [critical manipulation: Mismatch vs. Match in Determiner-Noun pairs and Mismatch vs. Match in Subject-Verb pairs] and the brain response [interaction effect at the neural response level]. The mediator model is represented by the semi-circle in the causal diagram (Figure 2S), where the causal effect of the treatment on the outcome is transmitted through an intermediate variable or a mediator [behavioural measures: RT or error rates]. The response model is represented by the triangle, where the behavioural measures and the critical manipulation act as predictors of the brain response. The effects of RT and error rates as mediator variables were estimated separately, represented by the black and the grey lines respectively. However, similar results emerged for the two analyses. The causal response effect between the treatment and the brain response outcome was significant for the three clusters. In contrast, no significant direct effect was found between the behavioural measures and the brain response outcome. Similarly, for the three clusters, the mediator model effects considering the RT as a mediator variable between treatment and neural response were not significant (p > 0.05). These results suggest that the interaction effect between the Type of Word Pair and the Agreement Pattern found at the neural level are not biased by the task difficulty.
View Source
Accepted Manuscript. Figure Captions
View Source

Related to Accepted Manuscript

  • ONLINE PUBLIC AUCTION PROCESS Bidders may browse through the PAH Website and select the properties they wish to bid online.

  • Delivery and Acceptance of the Manuscript The Author shall deliver the Contribution to the Editor (or, if requested by the Publisher, to the Publisher) on or before Delivery Date (the “Delivery Date”) electronically in the Publisher's standard requested format or in such other form as may be agreed in writing with the Publisher. The Author shall retain a duplicate copy of the Contribution. The Contribution shall be in a form acceptable to the Publisher (acting reasonably) and in line with the instructions contained in the Publisher’s guidelines as provided to the Author by the Publisher. The Author shall provide at the same time, or earlier if the Publisher reasonably requests, any editorial, publicity or other information (and in such form or format) reasonably required by the Publisher. The Publisher may exercise such additional quality control of the manuscript as it may decide at its sole discretion including through the use of plagiarism checking systems and/or peer review by internal or external reviewers of its choice. If the Publisher decides at its sole discretion that the final manuscript does not conform in quality, content, structure, level or form to the stated requirements of the Publisher, the Publisher shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Clause. The Author must inform the Publisher at the latest on the Delivery Date if the sequence of the naming of any co-authors entering into this Agreement shall be changed. If there are any changes in the authorship (e.g. a co-author joining or leaving), then the Publisher must be notified by the Author in writing immediately and the Parties will amend this Agreement accordingly. The Publisher shall have no obligation to consider publication under this Agreement in the absence of such agreed amendment. If the Author fails to deliver the Contribution in accordance with the provisions of this Clause above by the Delivery Date (or within any extension period given by the Publisher at its sole discretion) or if the Author (or any co-author) dies or becomes incapacitated or otherwise incapable of performing the Author’s obligations under this Agreement, the Publisher shall be entitled to either: (a) elect to continue to perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms and the Publisher may commission an appropriate and competent person (who, in the case of co-authors having entered into this Agreement, may be a co-author) to complete the Contribution; or (b) terminate this Agreement with immediate effect by written notice to the Author or the Author's successors, in which case all rights granted by the Author to the Publisher under this Agreement shall revert to the Author/Author's successors (subject to the provisions of the Clause "Termination"). The Author agrees, at the request of the Publisher, to execute all documents and do all things reasonably required by the Publisher in order to confer to the Publisher all rights intended to be granted under this Agreement. The Author warrants that the Contribution is original except for any excerpts from other works including pre-published illustrations, tables, animations, text quotations, photographs, diagrams, graphs or maps, and whether reproduced from print or electronic or other sources ("Third Party Material") and that any such Third Party Material is in the public domain (or otherwise unprotected by copyright/other rights) or has been included with written permission from or on behalf of the rights holder (and if requested in a form prescribed or approved by the Publisher) at the Author's expense unless otherwise agreed in writing, or is otherwise used in accordance with applicable law. On request from the Publisher, the Author shall in writing indicate the precise sources of these excerpts and their location in the manuscript. The Author shall also retain the written permissions and make them available to the Publisher on request.

  • Directory Publication Nothing in this Agreement shall require Verizon to publish a directory where it would not otherwise do so.

  • Advertising Materials 1. Open Ecosystem Partner may add its own material to the information supplied by either indirectly by Distributor or directly by SAP, solely for the purposes of Open Ecosystem Partner's own marketing activities. Any material which is added must be clearly marked as Open Ecosystem Partner's material. 2. All marketing and promotional materials developed by or for Open Ecosystem Partner, including, but not limited to, print advertisement, broadcast or telecast commercials, product brochures, sales aids, manuals, displays, and publicity concerning the Software distributed hereunder and related services must be of first quality.

  • Review of Public Disclosures All SEC filings (including, without limitation, all filings required under the Exchange Act, which include Forms 10-Q and 10-QSB, 10-K and 10K-SB, 8-K, etc) and other public disclosures made by the Company, including, without limitation, all press releases, investor relations materials, and scripts of analysts meetings and calls, shall be reviewed and approved for release by the Company’s attorneys and, if containing financial information, the Company’s independent certified public accountants.