Time-dependent variation in resighting rates was better explained by local rainfall (45.1% variance explained) than by the NAO (33.5% variance explained, Figure 1a).
This would explain Figure 1 of the manuscript.
As it stands, the authors explain Figure 1A, then jump to Figure 2A and 2B, then back to Figure 1B, and then describe 2C.
Many computational models exists explaining figure-ground segregation and border-ownership.
Finally, theoretical and most, if not all, computer models explain figure-ground segmentation by recurrent processing through horizontal and/or feedback connections.
Most, if not all, computer models [9], [10], [43] [57] explain figure-ground segmentation by recurrent processing through horizontal and/or feedback connections, as suggested in the neurophysiological literature.
These results also help explain Figures 2C and 2D, where the highest level of miR-155 was seen at 24 hours.
Specifically, the graphs in Figure 3B need to be explained, Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5K need improved labeling, and Figure 6C was difficult to interpret.
Be prepared to explain figures of speech.
This explains why Figure 4D is similar to Figure 2B.
