Is the eGFR formula adequate for evaluating renal function before chemotherapy in patients with urogenital cancer? A suggestion for clinical application of eGFR formula

Uozumi, Jiro; Noguchi, Mitsuru; Tokuda, Yuji; Tobu, Shohei; Udo, Kazuma; Kakinoki, Hiroaki; Kurata, Saya; Nanri, Masayuki; Ichibagase, Yuka; Takahara, Kenji

doi:10.1007/s10157-014-1037-3

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Color associated stimuli, on the other hand, share only semantic representations with the font colors presented in the Stroop task, and so their facilitation or interference has been taken to reflect semantic contributions (e.g., Klein, 1964 ; Augustinova and Ferrand, 2012 ; Anton et al, 2014 ). In terms of semantic influence, as measured by color associate Stroop effects, we show a clear facilitation-only effect on RT for color associate words, suggesting that there is at least some degree of automatic semantic access for such words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Semantically driven effects have been shown under other conditions. For instance, Augustinova and Ferrand ( 2012 ) used a 2/3 incongruent to 1/3 neutral proportion and obtained significant interference, and Dalrymple-Alford ( 1972 ) employed 1/8 congruent, 3/8 incongruent, and 4/8 neutral proportion, showing both facilitation and interference. An important consequence of this variability is that evaluating the contributions of contingency learning, or differences in covariation, apart from semantic interference is left uncertain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that Experiment 1 addresses the main question of what amount of interference and facilitation remains in the Stroop task when controlling for contingency effects, this design also lends itself to addressing the parallel question for color associate stimuli, which allows for the isolation of the semantic component of the Stroop effect. Although the Stroop effects found with color associate stimuli are assumed to reflect semantic processing (e.g., Klein, 1964 ; Augustinova and Ferrand, 2012 ; Anton et al, 2014 ), their effects in the classic design Stroop task (employing all combinations of font colors and words) may conflate semantic and contingency effects. Thus, Experiment 2 aimed to estimate the magnitude of semantic Stroop interference and facilitation in font color naming for CAs and CAPHs when contingency effects are controlled using pair-frequency matched neutral words.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note, however, that in most studies employing CAs, congruent stimuli are often omitted from the design (e.g., Klein, 1964 ; Augustinova and Ferrand, 2012 ), and have demonstrated interference with incongruent stimuli relative to pair-frequency matched neutral words. A possible explanation for why Experiment 2 did not demonstrate the same interference may involve inclusion of a congruent condition, although this appears unlikely.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to assess facilitative and interfering effects in the Stroop paradigm, a neutral baseline is necessary (Tzelgov et al, 1992 ; Neely and Kahan, 2001 ; Augustinova and Ferrand, 2012 ). For instance, Tzelgov et al ( 1992 ) manipulated the proportion of neutral trials relative to congruent and incongruent color words, and found that a larger proportion of neutral words correlated with a larger proportion of interference comparing neutral and incongruent conditions, although facilitation was not impacted by the proportion of neutral trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The automaticity of reading is often explored through the Stroop effect, whereby color-naming is affected by color words. Color associates (e.g., “sky”) also produce a Stroop effect, suggesting that automatic reading occurs through to the level of semantics, even when reading sub-lexically (e.g., the pseudohomophone “skigh”). However, several previous experiments have confounded congruency with contingency learning, whereby faster responding occurs for more frequent stimuli. Contingency effects reflect a higher frequency-pairing of the word with a font color in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition due to the limited set of congruent pairings. To determine the extent to which the Stroop effect can be attributed to contingency learning of font colors paired with lexical (word-level) and sub-lexical (phonetically decoded) letter strings, as well as assess facilitation and interference relative to contingency effects, we developed two neutral baselines: each one matched on pair-frequency for congruent and incongruent color words. In Experiments 1 and 3, color words (e.g., “blue”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “bloo”) produced significant facilitation and interference relative to neutral baselines, regardless of whether the onset (i.e., first phoneme) was matched to the color words. Color associates (e.g., “ocean”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin”), however, showed no significant facilitation or interference relative to onset matched neutral baselines (Experiment 2). When onsets were unmatched, color associate words produced consistent facilitation on RT (e.g., “ocean” vs. “dozen”), but pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin” vs. “duhzen”) failed to produce facilitation or interference. Our findings suggest that the Stroop effects for color and associated stimuli are sensitive to the type of neutral baseline used, as well as stimulus type (word vs. pseudohomophone). In general, contingency learning plays a large role when repeating congruent items more than incongruent items, but appropriate pair-frequency matched neutral baselines allow for the assessment of genuine facilitation and interference. Using such baselines, we found reading processes proceed to a semantic level for familiar words, but not pseudohomophones (i.e., phonetic decoding). Such assessment is critical for separating the effects of genuine congruency from contingency during automatic word reading in the Stroop task, and when used with color associates, isolates the semantic contribution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%