Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Table 5 Results in terms of the number of trials Experiments Accuracy level 80%95%100%0% I 6.58 trials 13.05 trials 15 trials II 6.68 trials 13.45 trials 15 trials III 7.10 trials 12.82 trials 15 trials Average 6.79 trials 13.11 trials 15 trials Results produced by the numerical experiments derived from our proposed template matching in conjunction with LDA (TMLDA).
As in the previous experiments, accuracy rates for the dot-detection task were high (mean [SD] = 98.9% [0.3]) and were not analyzed further.
Similar(58)
In the second experiment, accuracy did not change, but accuracy differed greatly for different people.
During the experiment, accuracy and speed were both stressed.
This performance speed is associated with a similar or even better (Dog experiment) accuracy at the superordinate level.
In that experiment, accuracy at comparing vibrations delivered to the same fingertip was reduced if neuronal activity in the contralateral SI was briefly interrupted by a TMS pulse delivered during the retention interval between the vibrations.
To ensure experiment accuracy, all reactions were performed in triplicate.
To ensure experiment accuracy, all quantitative measurements were performed in triplicate.
With the use of standard curves in each experiment, accuracy is achieved.
MEG Experiment: accuracy was above 90% for both groups in the two detection tasks, with the older subjects showing slightly lower accuracy in the visual condition (91vs.98%8%).
The results demonstrate that the experiments produced accuracy about 84.94 %, while the accuracy of the two human evaluators was about 84.93 %.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com