Suggestions(5)
Exact(8)
The very right bar in each panel shows the mean hit rate Ā φ for the respective condition.
The mean hit rate was 47% and the mean false alarm rate was 49.5%, which yielded a d' of −0.04.
The mean hit rate was 51.7% and the mean false alarm rate was 48.3%, which yielded a d' score of 0.06.
Figure 2A shows the mean hit rate (percent correct) as a function of the number of dots for each age group.
In order to render performance comparable across subjects, the mean hit rate across all TMS conditions (phosphene and control regions, at all delays) was subtracted from all hit rate values (including those for the condition without TMS).
Mean hit rate for this inventory was 87%.
Similar(52)
Comparing the mean hit rates Ā φ, the proposed algorithm (Setup V) achieves a hit rate of 87.7% and surpasses the core algorithm with the spectral comb filter (Setup II) by 37%.
It is apparent that the proposed algorithm (Setup V) outperforms Setup II for all conditions, resulting in mean hit rates Ā φ = 87.1 % for Setup V over all SNR (bottom panel in column (a)) and 55.3% for Setup II (top panel in column (a)).
As a measure of the monkeys' performance, mean hit rates and mean reaction times were averaged across cells.
Hit rates (not shown) mirror d′ with listeners achieving mean hit rates of 93 ± 2% for the most salient coherence/duration combination.
Comparison of mean hit rates for captions that had preceded negative or benign pictures again showed a significant effect of Valence, with higher hit rates for captions preceding negative rather than benign pictures, t 50) = 4.07, p<.001, d = 0.57.
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