CRF represent the probabilities for responding to each of the five response categories as a function of respondents' level of latent trait (Hambleton, 2005), as, for example, negative and/or positive affect.
We derived three measures from running averages based on 3-s time periods: A. Probability of responding as a function of time, or the number of participants that had pressed one or other key at a given time.
We measured Plarger as a function of numerosity (Figure 2A) for number responded first trials and for number responded second trials, collapsing across all SOA values and fitted these experimentally obtained distributions to the theoretical prediction given by equation 1.
The present study, employing a repeated measures design, investigated systematic cross-mode differences in responding as a function of gender.
The PREE was still evident when responding was examined as a function of expected time units to the reinforcer, but was eliminated when responding was examined as a function of expected trial units to the reinforcer.
In order to perform this optimization, a first principle model predicting how process and associated control will respond as a function of time was created based on all plant's engineering information.
This G4 sequence provides a compelling example of a sequence prone to G oxidation that subsequently alters transcription supporting cancer metastasis; additionally, a number of the other G4-regulated genes have been demonstrated to respond as a function of oxidative stress.
We studied cutoff thresholds to identify responding tumours as a function of the method used to measure tumour uptake.
As measures of self-monitoring we compared decision time, proportion correct, confidence ratings (group 2), and the number of question-relevant websites visited during the internet search task as a function of whether or not participants chose to respond to a given question and the accuracy of the response generated.
