Showing 521 - 540 results of 18,465 for search '(( 50 ((we decrease) OR (mean decrease)) ) OR ( 5 ((non decrease) OR (nn decrease)) ))', query time: 0.78s Refine Results
  1. 521

    Video_1_Suppression of top-down influence decreases both behavioral and V1 neuronal response sensitivity to stimulus orientations in cats.MP4 by Zheng Ye (15102)

    Published 2023
    “…<p>How top-down influence affects behavioral detection of visual signals and neuronal response sensitivity in the primary visual cortex (V1) remains poorly understood. This study examined both behavioral performance in stimulus orientation identification and neuronal response sensitivity to stimulus orientations in the V1 of cat before and after top-down influence of area 7 (A7) was modulated by non-invasive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). …”
  2. 522
  3. 523
  4. 524
  5. 525
  6. 526
  7. 527
  8. 528

    Relationship between pattern electroretinogram and optic disc morphology in glaucoma by Soo Ji Jeon (3364214)

    Published 2019
    “…However, in glaucoma patients, mean RNFL thickness was associated with PERG amplitude (<i>P =</i> 0.011 for P50 and 0.002 for N95).…”
  9. 529
  10. 530
  11. 531
  12. 532
  13. 533
  14. 534

    S1 File - by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

    Published 2024
    “…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
  15. 535

    Detailed information on field experiments. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

    Published 2024
    “…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
  16. 536

    List of symbols used in this study. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

    Published 2024
    “…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
  17. 537

    Data sources for calibration and evaluation. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

    Published 2024
    “…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
  18. 538
  19. 539
  20. 540