Search alternatives:
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
non decrease » point decrease (Expand Search), note decreased (Expand Search), fold decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
non decrease » point decrease (Expand Search), note decreased (Expand Search), fold decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
-
521
Video_1_Suppression of top-down influence decreases both behavioral and V1 neuronal response sensitivity to stimulus orientations in cats.MP4
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). …”
-
522
-
523
-
524
-
525
-
526
-
527
-
528
Relationship between pattern electroretinogram and optic disc morphology in glaucoma
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).…”
-
529
-
530
-
531
-
532
-
533
-
534
S1 File -
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. …”
-
535
Detailed information on field experiments.
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. …”
-
536
List of symbols used in this study.
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. …”
-
537
Data sources for calibration and evaluation.
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. …”
-
538
-
539
-
540