We next defined measures of sensitivity summarizing how sensitive the system was to perturbations of the single parameter.
New measures of sensitivity to measurement inaccuracy and parameter changes are also introduced.
Next, we turn to measures of sensitivity and bias.
The quantitative measures of sensitivity and specificity for the binarized output image are recorded as 75 and 84%%.
The quantitative measures, of sensitivity and specificity, for the output image, are computed as 82 and 89 %.
The paper also proposes global measures of sensitivity of failure probability with respect to the basic random variables.
Results were analyzed using a variety of measures of sensitivity and bias, both parametric and non-parametric, as well as robust statistics.
This vector QoI was broken into a set of scalar QoIs, each representing the density of NO at a specific point downstream of the shock, and sensitivities were calculated for each scalar QoI based on both measures of sensitivity.
In the current study, our results demonstrate that, despite a conservative response criterion, measures of sensitivity show evidence of change errors (and thus, change deafness) that are also reflected in the relatively high miss rates.1.1
In the change blindness literature, the influence of response bias is recognized and thus analyses typically report performance based on SDT measures of sensitivity in addition to accuracy measures (e.g., Mitroff et al., 2004).
Using a quasi-experimental design we obtained measures of sensitivity to reward (self-report and behavioral), as well as affective and physiological responses to experimental psychosocial stress in a sample of 140 healthy college-age participants.
