Sentence examples for distribution of confidence from inspiring English sources

As expected, given the weak stimulus, the distribution of confidence ratings for correct responses was dominated (88%) by low confidence R1 and R2 responses (Fig. 2b).

We aimed at finding a model that would explain our above observations (Fig. 2c,d) while at the same time making a quantitative prediction about the expected distribution of confidence ratings.

To quantify the relation between objective performance (accuracy of the response) and participant's subjective confidence report, we binned the distribution of confidence report in four percentile groups (25, 50, 75 and 100%), for each individual session and participant (Figure 2A).

For example, as in Fig.  1, given p1 = 0.1 (first row), the distribution of confidence for p2 = 0.1 is identical to the distribution of confidence for p2 = 0.9.

The narrow distribution of confidence intervals after bootstrapping underscores the reliability of our results (Table 1).

Likewise, the distribution of confidence for p2 = 0.3 is symmetric of confidence for p2 = 0.7.

In this model, the target distribution has greater variance than the lure distribution, and Mickes et al. (2007) plotted distributions of confidence ratings for correct rejections and hits that supported this assumption.

Next we investigated the distribution of subjects' confidence ratings for our single-photon SPDC source.

(b) Distribution of different confidence ratings for post-selected single-photon events in which the stimulus was correctly identified.

First, we show in Figure 4A the distribution of the confidence levels.

To explore possible dissociations between objective and subjective measurements, we explored the distribution of subjective confidence reports for error trials (Figure 2B).