<p>Percentage of participants from each group who performed below three arbitrary cutoff criteria (based on Global Score).</p
<p>Proportion of subjects meeting the criteria for components of metabolic syndrome stratified by ge...
<p>Percentage of the number of ‘r’s counted in the visual search task, by the six groups of particip...
Percentages, rounded to the first decimal, of participants who chose which EMPs for which sentences....
<p>The percentage of individuals from the various populations (rows) that were classified as members...
<p>Proportion of tester groups who achieved a specified level of accuracy in PT1 and PT2.</p
<p>Proportion of potential participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, relative to the to...
Percentage of participants that judged each movement as won a game in Experiment 3.</p
<p>Percentage of correct matches from (A) the human assessment and (B) the computational method.</p
<p>Percentage participants above and below the cut-off point for moderate or worse problematic inter...
<p>Participants' mean accuracy rates (%) for each condition (with standard deviations).</p
<p>Percentage distribution of participants’ characteristics at different levels.</p
<p>The percentage of participants who endorsed each option in the various scenarios (%, n = 123).</p
<p>The percentage of “not able to score” for each Facial Action Unit identified.</p
<p>Percentage of correctly classified sections by the automated approach in each subgroup.</p
<p>Percentage and total number of groups in each depth range registered during the study period.</p
<p>Proportion of subjects meeting the criteria for components of metabolic syndrome stratified by ge...
<p>Percentage of the number of ‘r’s counted in the visual search task, by the six groups of particip...
Percentages, rounded to the first decimal, of participants who chose which EMPs for which sentences....
<p>The percentage of individuals from the various populations (rows) that were classified as members...
<p>Proportion of tester groups who achieved a specified level of accuracy in PT1 and PT2.</p
<p>Proportion of potential participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, relative to the to...
Percentage of participants that judged each movement as won a game in Experiment 3.</p
<p>Percentage of correct matches from (A) the human assessment and (B) the computational method.</p
<p>Percentage participants above and below the cut-off point for moderate or worse problematic inter...
<p>Participants' mean accuracy rates (%) for each condition (with standard deviations).</p
<p>Percentage distribution of participants’ characteristics at different levels.</p
<p>The percentage of participants who endorsed each option in the various scenarios (%, n = 123).</p
<p>The percentage of “not able to score” for each Facial Action Unit identified.</p
<p>Percentage of correctly classified sections by the automated approach in each subgroup.</p
<p>Percentage and total number of groups in each depth range registered during the study period.</p
<p>Proportion of subjects meeting the criteria for components of metabolic syndrome stratified by ge...
<p>Percentage of the number of ‘r’s counted in the visual search task, by the six groups of particip...
Percentages, rounded to the first decimal, of participants who chose which EMPs for which sentences....
DOI
Add to ORKG