In one experiment, Glimcher and a colleague trained thirsty monkeys to direct their eyes to one of two illuminated targets, which earned them differing chances of getting juice rewards — a fifty-per-cent chance of getting a full cup of juice for looking right, say, versus a seventy-per-cent chance of getting half a cup of juice for looking left.
In one experiment, Glimcher and a colleague trained thirsty monkeys to direct their eyes to one of two illuminated targets, which earned them differing chances of getting juice rewards a fifty-per-cent chance of getting a full cup of juice for looking right, say, versus a seventy-per-cent chance of getting half a cup of juice for looking left.
As the previous NSWPHS samples came from a single frame the weighting did not need to account for the differing chances of selection by type of phone use.
Thirdly, discordance at the level of statistical significance does not necessarily mean that results for different outcomes differ beyond chance.
To determine whether the correct choice probability differed from chance level for particular sessions or conditions, we tested whether the intercept differed from 0 (=log(1), corresponding to the chance level of 50%%) in binomial GLMs with the intercept as the only predictor.
Based on random effects calculations, the design difference did not differ beyond chance when analyses were performed according to type of observational study, type of meta-analysis, type of randomised controlled trial, statistical significance of the biomarker, and whether the biomarker was recommended for clinical practice (table 3).
A binomial test revealed that the proportion of symmetric images being chosen as most sexually dimorphic significantly differed from chance (chosen = 6/6, chance 3/6, p = .031).031
One-sample t-tests on the mean scores for Block B against a test value of 50% HR choices (chance performance) showed that the MFC-I group did not significantly differ from chance (t = 0.914, P = 0.376), while the MFC-C group was significantly different from chance (t = 11.986, P < 0.001), indicating a significant preference for the low effort/LR option.
Shuffled trials classification probability (0.498 ± 0.001) did not differ from chance t(11) = 2.11, p = 0.057.
Time spent investigating the odorized hole differed from chance level (one-sample t-test for difference from 50%) indicating odor detection.
Comparing the overall scores to chance (50%) using one-sample t-tests revealed that the choice of symmetric/asymmetric composites differed from chance (mean = 67%, SD = 17%, t49 = 7.01, p<.001) while the random composites did not (mean = 47%, SD = 17%, t36 = 7.01, p = .337).337
