Common use of Stimuli Clause in Contracts

Stimuli. Participants saw four categories of images: low-caloric foods (“LC foods”), high-caloric foods (“HC foods”), opposite-sex couples engaged in non-emotive tasks (termed here “neutral couples”), and opposite-sex couples engaged in explicit sexual activity (“sexual couples”). Images of LC foods depicted ▇▇▇▇▇ starch and vegetable foods, such as plain oatmeal and cucumbers. Images of HC foods depicted palatable sweet and savory foods, such as cakes and cheeseburgers. Representative neutral couple images include images of opposite-sex pairs performing an active task wherein they were not touching, such as running or walking. Sexual couple images depicted opposite-sex pairs engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse or oral sex. No food images included people and no couple images included food. All images were sized such that the aspect ratio was maintained and the longest image dimension (length in the case of vertically-oriented images and width in the case of horizontally-oriented images) was sized to 700 pixels. Participants saw 80 unique images in each test session: 20 from each category, and 160 unique images in total across the two test sessions. Images were acquired from internet sources. To ensure that images were accurately reflective of the image category to which they were assigned, all test images were piloted prior to use by group of seven women who did not participate in the study. In the pilot, women were asked to view the images as long as they would like, and to rate the images on how appetizing they found them (in the case of the food) or how sexually appealing (in the case of the couples). Pilot participants rated the images on a scale from 1 – 9, with 1 indicating the lowest possible rating (corresponding to “extremely unappetizing” in the case of food and “extremely sexually unappealing” in the case of couple images), and 9 indicating the highest possible rating (corresponding to “extremely appetizing” and “extremely sexually appealing”). In total, individuals rated 618 images in the pilot (341 couple images and 244 food). Pilot participants rated the HC images subsequently selected for the image set as much more appetizing than the selected LC foods, and the mean ratings for either category did not differ across the two test sessions (Mean ± SD, Session 1: HC food = 7.19 ± 0.42, LC food = 4.72 ± 0.35; Session 2: HC food = 7.08 ± 0.38, LC food = 4.80 ± 0.45, both p’s < 0.001 for HC vs. LC and both p’s > 0.27 for Session 1 vs. Session 2). Pilot participants also looked longer at the selected HC foods than they did at LC foods (Mean ± SD, Session 1: HC food = 2.06 ± 0.56, LC food = 1.46 ± 0.21; Session 2: HC food = 2.06 ± 0.33, LC food = 1.49 ± 0.19, both p’s < 0.001 for HC vs. LC and both p’s > 0.60 for Session 1 vs. Session 2). Pilot participants rated the sexual couples included in the image set to be more sexually appealing than they did the neutral couples, and the ratings did not differ across the two sessions (Mean ± SD, Session 1: Sexual couples = 7.21 ± 0.66, Neutral couples = 4.57 ± 0.23; Session 2: Sexual couples = 7.20 ± 0.59, Neutral couples = 4.57 ± 0.28, both p’s < 0.001 for Sexual vs. Neutral and both p’s > 0.96 for Session 1 vs. Session 2). Average pilot viewing time was also longer for the selected sexual couples than for the neutral couples (Mean ± SD, Session 1: Sexual couples = 3.33 ± 0.76, Neutral couples = 1.75 ± 0.41; Session 2: Sexual couples = 3.28 ± 0.89, Neutral couples = 1.76 ± 0.29, both p’s < 0.001 for Sexual vs. Neutral and both p’s > 0.86 for Session 1 vs. Session 2).. To assess motivation to view the images presented, participants were given a task wherein they were able to alter the display time of the images they saw by pressing keys on the desktop keyboard (paradigm adapted from Aharon et al., 2001; ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013; Wang, Hahn, Fisher, DeBruine, Jones, 2014; Hahn, DeBruine, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2015). As a default, each image showed for 1.5 seconds. Participants could extend the image viewing time by repeatedly pressing the “up” arrow on the keyboard. Alternatively, participants could decrease viewing time by repeatedly pressing the “down” arrow on the keyboard. Each “up” keypress added 200ms to the image viewing time and each down keypress subtracted 50ms. Keypress time was modeled after time allotted to keypresses in similar paradigms (e.g., Wang et al., 2014; ▇▇▇▇ et al., 2015). Time was added or subtracted only by independent keypresses— holding down the key continuously did not add or subtract time beyond the equivalent of one keypress. To keep participants informed of how much viewing time remained, a horizontal time- bar appeared below the image and its width changed in proportion to the amount of image time remaining. Images were presented in a randomized order and in two blocks: a block of food images and a block of couples images. A fixation cross appeared in between each image, and participants were required to press the spacebar to initiate image presentation. Participants were not provided with an explicit explanation of what the keypresses meant beyond that they were a means to change the amount of time that the image was on the screen. To safeguard against participants repeatedly pressing the down arrow to shorten the length of the experimental session, they were told that button presses affected the display-time of the image on the screen but not the overall time of the study. Although keypresses actually did affect the experimental time, the effect was on the order of seconds.

Stimuli. Participants saw four categories of images: low-caloric foods (“LC foods”), high-caloric foods (“HC foods”), opposite-sex couples engaged in active but non-emotive tasks (termed here “neutral couples”), and opposite-sex couples engaged in explicit sexual activity (“sexual couples”). Images of LC foods depicted ▇▇▇▇▇ starch starches, vegetables, and vegetable foodslegumes, such as plain oatmeal and cucumbers. Images of HC foods depicted palatable sweet and savory foods, such as cakes and cheeseburgers. Representative neutral couple images include images of opposite-sex pairs performing an active task wherein they were not touchingtask, such as running or walking. wherein they were not touching. Sexual couple images depicted opposite-sex pairs engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse or oral sex. No food images included people and no couple images included food. All images were sized such that the aspect ratio was maintained and the longest image dimension (length in the case of vertically-oriented images and width in the case of horizontally-oriented images) was sized to 700 pixels. Participants saw 80 a total of 384 images: 256 unique images in each test session: 20 from each categoryimages, and 160 unique images in total across the two test sessions128 repeats. Images were acquired from internet sources. To ensure that images were accurately reflective A subset of the image category to which they were assigned, all test images stimuli used were piloted prior to use by an independent group of seven women who did not participate in the study. In the pilot, women were asked to view the images as long as they would like, and the remaining images were closely content-matched to rate those that were piloted. Pilot participants rated the images on how appetizing they found them (in the case of the food) or and how sexually appealing (in the case of the couples). Pilot participants rated the images ) on a scale from 1 – 9, with 1 indicating the lowest possible rating (corresponding to “extremely unappetizing” in the case of food and or “extremely sexually unappealing”), 5 indicating a “neutral” in the case of couple images)score, and 9 indicating the highest possible rating (corresponding to “extremely appetizing” and or “extremely sexually appealing”). In total, individuals rated 618 images in the pilot (341 couple images and 244 food). Pilot participants rated the The HC images subsequently selected for the image set were rated as much more appetizing than were the selected LC foods, and the mean ratings for either category did not differ across the two test sessions (Mean ± SD, Session 1: HC food = 7.19 ± 0.42, LC food = 4.72 ± 0.35; Session 2: HC food = 7.08 ± 0.38, LC food = 4.80 ± 0.45, both p’s < 0.001 for HC vs. LC and both p’s > 0.27 for Session 1 vs. Session 2). Pilot participants also looked longer at the selected HC foods than they did at LC foods (Mean ± SD, Session 1: HC food = 2.06 6.79 ± 0.560.44, LC food = 1.46 4.94 ± 0.21; Session 2: HC food = 2.06 ± 0.330.60, LC food = 1.49 ± 0.19, both p’s p < 0.001 for HC vs. LC and both p’s > 0.60 for Session 1 vs. Session 20.001). Pilot participants The sexual couple images selected were rated the sexual couples included in the image set to be as more sexually appealing than they did were the neutral couples, and the ratings did not differ across the two sessions couple images selected for use (Mean ± SD, Session 1: Sexual couples = 7.21 7.09 ± 0.660.31, Neutral couples = 4.57 4.56 ± 0.23; Session 2: Sexual couples 0.54, p < 0.001) Of the NC women, half (n = 7.20 ± 0.5913) were assigned to attend the session in the periovulatory phase of their menstrual cycles, Neutral couples and the other half (n = 4.57 ± 0.2813) were assigned to attend in the luteal phase of their cycles. To confirm hormonal group assignment, both pperiovulatory participants were asked to take luteinizing hormone (LH) tests for up to seven days around their estimated time of ovulation. Approximate date of ovulation was considered to be 14 days prior to the estimated first day of the participant’s < 0.001 for Sexual vs. Neutral next menstrual cycle (cycle start-date estimation was derived from provided start-date of previous cycle and both p’s > 0.96 for Session 1 vs. Session 2average cycle length). Average pilot viewing time Once a participant received a positive LH test, she emailed a photograph of the result to a secure lab email account. Upon confirmation of the positive result, the participant’s test session was scheduled within the following 24 – 36 hours. Luteal women’s test sessions were scheduled approximately 4 – 7 days before the estimated first day of their next menstrual cycle. Luteal phase assignment was subsequently confirmed with participant report that she began her next cycle ≤ 13 days following her test session. Half of the OC women (n = 13) were assigned to attend their test session in the pill-free week of their pill-packs (termed here “OC_0”) and half (n = 14) were assigned to attend in the third week of their pill-packs (“OC_3”). Participant sessions were scheduled in accordance with participants reported start-date of their current pill-pack. All participants were asked to abstain from eating for 2 hours before the test session. Prior to the scan, participants completed an assessment of their current hunger level (as rated from 0 [not at all hungry] to 100 [extremely hungry]) and mood (as measured from select items on the Positive and Negative Affect Scale [PANAS]; Watson, Clark, & Tellegan, 1988). They also longer for the selected sexual couples than for the neutral couples (Mean ± SD, Session 1: Sexual couples = 3.33 ± 0.76, Neutral couples = 1.75 ± 0.41; Session 2: Sexual couples = 3.28 ± 0.89, Neutral couples = 1.76 ± 0.29, both p’s < 0.001 for Sexual vs. Neutral and both p’s > 0.86 for Session 1 vs. Session 2).. To assess completed a behavioral test of motivation to view images of couples and food (please see Chapter 2 for behavioral data). Although images in the behavioral and neuroimaging tests were similar in content, none of the images presented, participants seen in the neuroimaging portion of the study were given a task wherein they were able seen in the behavioral session. Participants returned to alter the display time of behavioral testing room after the scan to rate the images they saw by pressing keys on in the desktop keyboard scanner, complete another assessment of their hunger level and mood, and to answer questions about their sexual experiences over the course of the previous week (paradigm adapted from Aharon et al., 2001as measured via the Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI]; ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013; Wang, Hahn, Fisher, DeBruine, Jones, 2014; Hahn, DeBruine, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2015). As a default, each image showed for 1.5 seconds. Participants could extend the image viewing time by repeatedly pressing the “up” arrow on the keyboard. Alternatively, participants could decrease viewing time by repeatedly pressing the “down” arrow on the keyboard. Each “up” keypress added 200ms to the image viewing time and each down keypress subtracted 50ms. Keypress time was modeled after time allotted to keypresses in similar paradigms (e.g., Wang et al., 2014; ▇▇▇▇ et al., 20152000). Time Scanning was added or subtracted only by independent keypresses— holding down performed on a Siemens 3T Trio whole-body scanner in the key continuously did not add or subtract time beyond Facility for Education and Research in Neuroscience at Emory University with a 32-channel head matrix coil. A structural MRI was acquired for each subject with a T1-weighted pulse sequence (TR = 1900 ms, TE = 2.27 ms, flip angle = 9°, 192 sagittal slices, 1 x 1 x 1 mm voxel size) prior to the equivalent of one keypressfunctional scans. Structural image acquisition lasted 4mins and 26s. To keep measure blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) response, an echo-planar imaging sequence was used to acquire T2*- weighted images (TR = 2000 ms, TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 90°, FOV = 192 mm × 192 mm, 35 3- mm thick axial slices, and 3 × 3 × 3 mm voxels). Participants underwent a total of 21 minutes of functional scanning: four runs that were each 5mins and 15s in length. Images were displayed to participants informed of how much viewing time remained, a horizontal time- bar appeared below in the image and its width changed in proportion scanner using MATLAB 2016b via an angled mirror attached to the amount of head matrix. Participants saw 96 images per run—24 images per image time remainingcategory. Images were presented in a randomized order block design, and in two blocks: each block consisted of six images of the same category presented consecutively. Each image was presented for 2 seconds (s) followed by a 0.5s interstimulus interval, yielding a block time of food 15s. In addition to the 16 blocks of images per run, there were also five blocks in which participants saw only a white fixation cross on a grey background. Fixation-cross blocks were the same duration as image blocks (15s) (Figure 1). Each run had a unique block order. For all runs, the first eight image blocks were presented in a pseudorandom order, and the remaining eight were presented in the reverse order of the first. Blocks of HC foods and sexual couples were never shown back-to-back – these image categories were always followed by at least one block of “neutral” images (i.e. the neutral couples or LC foods). To ensure that one stimulus category did not come to predict another, no one image category exclusively preceded any other category (i.e. sexual couple blocks did not always precede neutral couple blocks). All runs began with a fixation block, and a fixation block of couples imagesoccurred every four blocks thereafter. A fixation cross To confirm that participants attended to the images shown in the scanner, all participants were given a button-box to hold during the scan and were instructed to press the button closest to the button-box cord (i.e., the blue button) whenever an image repeated (i.e., when an image was shown twice in a row; termed a “one-back task”). Of the six images per block, four images were unique and two were repeats. There was no consistent pattern as to which images in the block repeated. Following the scan, participants returned to the private behavioral testing room and used a desktop computer to rate the 256 images they saw in the scanner on appeal. Images appeared in between each imagerandom order, and participants were required able to press view each image for an unrestricted amount of time. Participants pressed the spacebar to initiate end image presentationpresentation and advance to the rating scale. In the case of the food images, participants were asked to rate the food in the previous image on how appetizing they found it. The rating scale ranged from 1 – 9, with “1” indicating “extremely unappetizing,” “5” indicating “neutral,” and “9” indicating “extremely appetizing.” For couples images, participants were asked to rate how sexually appealing they found the scene in the previous image. The rating scale again ranged from 1 – 9, with “0” indicating “extremely sexually unappealing,” “5” indicating “neutral,” and “9” indicating “extremely sexually appealing.” Participants were not provided with an explicit explanation of what the keypresses meant beyond that they were a means to change the amount of time that the image was selected their numerical rating on the screen. To safeguard against participants repeatedly pressing desktop keyboard and pressed the down arrow spacebar to shorten the length of the experimental session, they were told that button presses affected the display-time of the image on the screen but not the overall time of the study. Although keypresses actually did affect the experimental time, the effect was on the order of secondssubmit their responses.