Panel A compares shifts in True Positive Rates (TPR) across Study 1 and 2 conditions. Panel B compares shifts in False Positive Rate (FPR) across Study 1 and 2 conditions. Panel C compares Criterion shifts across Study 1 and 2 conditions. The Mask and No Mask bars are the experimental conditions from Study 1. The Mask+65 and Mask+95 correspond to the 65- and 95-algorithm conditions in Study 2, respectively. Significant (p p < 0.05) shifts across conditions and studies are indicated by horizontal lines and asterisks (*).</p
Results of Experiment 1. Panel A: reading times (geometric means) across sentence regions and 95% co...
<p>The four panels correspond to four ROIs that were defined in V1 by the respective conditions. To ...
<p>Note that for the conditions Δ<i>F</i> = 0 that were measured with and without background noise, ...
<p>Results of main experiment. Each row shows results for a different observer. The data points are ...
<p>Panel a) displays the proportion correct and Panel b) the reaction time results for the transsacc...
<p>Shown are FPRs under the null hypothesis of no phenotypic effect, estimated by resampling simulat...
<p>Threshold change ratios for the three main conditions are computed by dividing the contrast thres...
<p>Error bars for this panel represent within-participant 95% confidence intervals [<a href="http://...
<p>Panel A illustrates the probability of fixating new objects in Experiment 2; Panel B illustrates ...
<p>Panel a: Mean estimated critical angles for the scenes presented on the left and on the right sid...
<p>Left Panel: Proportion correct averaged across individuals for each degree difference between ref...
<p>Depicted is the mean Dice coefficient that was reached by each of the five standard segmentation ...
Each panel shows best-fitting evidence-accumulation (ordinate) and starting-point biases (abscissa),...
<p>Left panel: Normalised effective contrast plane averaged across all masks. Dark regions indicate ...
<p>Shown are FPRs under the null hypothesis of no phenotypic effect, estimated by resampling control...
Results of Experiment 1. Panel A: reading times (geometric means) across sentence regions and 95% co...
<p>The four panels correspond to four ROIs that were defined in V1 by the respective conditions. To ...
<p>Note that for the conditions Δ<i>F</i> = 0 that were measured with and without background noise, ...
<p>Results of main experiment. Each row shows results for a different observer. The data points are ...
<p>Panel a) displays the proportion correct and Panel b) the reaction time results for the transsacc...
<p>Shown are FPRs under the null hypothesis of no phenotypic effect, estimated by resampling simulat...
<p>Threshold change ratios for the three main conditions are computed by dividing the contrast thres...
<p>Error bars for this panel represent within-participant 95% confidence intervals [<a href="http://...
<p>Panel A illustrates the probability of fixating new objects in Experiment 2; Panel B illustrates ...
<p>Panel a: Mean estimated critical angles for the scenes presented on the left and on the right sid...
<p>Left Panel: Proportion correct averaged across individuals for each degree difference between ref...
<p>Depicted is the mean Dice coefficient that was reached by each of the five standard segmentation ...
Each panel shows best-fitting evidence-accumulation (ordinate) and starting-point biases (abscissa),...
<p>Left panel: Normalised effective contrast plane averaged across all masks. Dark regions indicate ...
<p>Shown are FPRs under the null hypothesis of no phenotypic effect, estimated by resampling control...
Results of Experiment 1. Panel A: reading times (geometric means) across sentence regions and 95% co...
<p>The four panels correspond to four ROIs that were defined in V1 by the respective conditions. To ...
<p>Note that for the conditions Δ<i>F</i> = 0 that were measured with and without background noise, ...