For example, Heffner et al. (2011) reported that the average ratio of GS accuracy to PS accuracy for grain quality traits in biparental wheat populations containing 174 or 209 individuals were 0·66, 0·54 and 0·42 for training population sizes of 96, 48 and 24, respectively.
Cantlon and Brannon [53], testing number-experienced and number-naïve rhesus monkeys in a delayed match-to-sample task similar to that used with children [49], found a significant effect of numerical ratio on accuracy for numerosities 1 4, an indication that non-human primates may rely on analog magnitude representations for both small and large numbers.
A main effect of the numerical ratio on accuracy was observed (F 2,48) = 4.37, p = 0.018) with the number errors increasing when the numerical distance between quantities decreased.
Participants' efficiency at calculating the sums was measured as the ratio of their accuracy – percentage correct – over the resources invested in arriving at the answer.
For all subtests, the raw score is the ratio of the accuracy and time to completion summed across items/pages.
The raw score is the ratio of the accuracy and the time to completion summed across the items.
For a given selection intensity, response to selection measured in genetic standard deviations is proportional to the ratio of the accuracy of EBV and generation interval.
To evaluate performance on the first two subtests, the raw score is the ratio of the accuracy and time to completion.
In contrast, Pt2 showed an abnormally high conflict ratio for accuracy of responses.
This study investigated the role of self-efficacy beliefs, mathematics anxiety, and working memory capacity in problem-solving accuracy, response time, and efficiency (the ratio of problem-solving accuracy to response time).
