Sentence examples for significantly more correct from inspiring English sources

Compared with police/verbal interviews, clinician/prop-assisted interviews resulted in significantly more correct rejections and commission errors in children's memory reports.

Students gave significantly more correct answers to the cognitive test performed after the interactive display game-play.

The typical sex difference (Frederick, 2005; Campitelli & Gerrans, 2014; Pennycook et al., 2016) was observed for CRT scores, where male participants gave significantly more correct answers (M = 0.88) than female participants (M = 0.41), t(496) = 4.59, p <.001, d =.513, and fewer intuitive answers (M = 1.83) than female participants (M = 2.32), t(496) = 4.29, p <.001, d =.494.

The monkey made significantly more correct responses to familiar images than to new images (76.08% correct, χ2 = 150.62, df = 1, p<0.00001).

The minimum saccadic reaction time (minimum RT) was defined as the first 10 ms bin of the distribution that contained significantly more correct responses than errors (chi-square test, p<0.05).

Within predictable blocks, significantly more correct responses were given in rewarded (83.07% ±2.3%) than in non-rewarded trials (69.73% ±1.61; F1,14 = 16.451; p = 0.001), while in unpredictable blocks there was no difference between rewarding and non-rewarding trials.

We find evidence supporting the hypothesis that people are willing to pay significantly more to correct problems caused by humans than by nature (the 'outrage effect'), but find no support for the hypothesis that 'moral responsibility' matters.

They gave on average 15.3 (SD 2.3, range 10 to 21) "correct" answers out of 23 (66.5%) – significantly more than 11.5 "correct" answers that would expected by chance (p < 0.001).

Accordingly, in Experiment 1 it was shown that dichotic syllables of high (e.g., /ba/ and /ga/) as opposed to low spectro-temporal overlap (e.g., /ba/ and /ka/) produce significantly faster and more correct answers, and are more often perceived as one syllable.

This was significantly more than 11.5 "correct" answers that would expected if answers were given at random (p < 0.001).

Related lure false alarms were significantly more negative than correct rejections at parietal and centro-parietal clusters for the 700 800 ms interval (p values < 0.01) and at only the parietal cluster for the 800 900 ms interval (p < 0.05).