Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(32)
Data points represent the preference ratio ([number preferred −number nonpreferred]/[number preferred + number nonpreferred]) for each participant.
We categorized participants' anchor points on the basis of the ratio of the number of saccades directed toward one feature over the over (preference ratio = [number of preferred saccades − number of nonpreferred saccades]/[number of preferred saccades + number of nonpreferred saccades]).
However, a fixed preference ratio between these two variables is too undifferentiated.
Then, these numbers are ranked on the basis of their preference ratio.
Prior exposure to juniper did not affect (P = 0.61) the preference ratio for juniper, but goats had higher preference ratio for juniper (P < 0.01) when receiving PEG (period 4).
The preference period showed a strong preference ratio for LS rather than SS (preference ratio = 0.83), with heifers consuming 0.43 ± 0.2 kg/d of LS and 0.07 ± 0.1 kg/d of SS (mean ± SD).
Similar(28)
Details about subjective reports of feature preferences are included in Additional file 2. We also measured participants' feature biases during the orthogonal task by calculating preference ratios for each dimension (on the basis of preferred features used during the single-dimension tasks).
Histograms of participants' preference ratios for both the size and contrast single-dimension tasks are shown in Fig. 2.
Importantly, these anchor points persisted in a task-dependent manner: When participants judged graphs that varied in both size and contrast (orthogonal task), preference ratios defined by the task-relevant dimension were significantly stronger than preference ratios defined by the task-irrelevant dimension.
Each colored line represents data of a single participant Fig. 4 Absolute values of preference ratios based on contrast and size for the orthogonal task in Experiment 1a (size-relevant) and Experiment 1b (contrast-relevant).
However, when lever preference ratios were analyzed for each subregion separately, none of the subregions had a significant effect.
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