Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки Tricks Of BI 6727: Find Out How To Crank BI 6727 In The Bat Of An Eye

0, which tends to make the data appear worse than they could be if a regression-related correction were applied. For the 17-[http://www.selleckchem.com/products/3-deazaneplanocin-a-dznep.html DZNeP cell line] stimulus protocol in particular, however, the estimation of the power function exponent is also vulnerable to an under-sampling error, because each response is only one of several that reasonably could have been given to that particular  stimulus, albeit this set is much smaller in CS than in conventional scaling. Thus, alternative responses by a subject to only a few of the 17 stimuli in the set could alter the estimated exponent considerably while leaving rRP2 nearly unchanged. This vulnerability cannot be compensated for by a simple correction based on the regression, since the regression does not reflect it. Thus, we decided to exclude the few more variable data sets and to report uncorrected exponents rather than to correct all exponents for the regression effect. It should be mentioned here that this problem is a general one in curve fitting and has not yet been  adequately addressed that we know of, although resampling and/or Bayesian methods (e.g., Dixon and O��Reilly, 1999) may one day provide a better solution than we have achieved. Until this happens, in practice, rRP2 for the more difficult continua should be estimated every several trials and the run terminated only when it exceeds the minimum criterion. Results and Discussion Figure ?Figure33 displays representative psychophysical functions from the ��best�� and ��worst�� observers (in terms of rRP2) across all four laboratories from the present experiments. These are from the first recalibration run at 1000 Hz with feedback (interleaved with judgments of silence for the normal subjects, and with judgments of tinnitus magnitude for the tinnitus sufferers) for the 52-stimulus and the 17-stimulus protocols separately. Figure ?Figure44 does the same for the 65, 500, and 5000 Hz data. It should be stressed that individual responses to individual stimuli are plotted in Figure ?Figure33 and in Figure ?Figure44, in contrast to usual psychophysical functions that,  even when plotted for individual observers, consist of points based on from several (around 10 is a typical minimum) to many (sometimes over 50) judgments per stimulus. This renders the present functions even more impressive because the well-known variability of responses to repeated presentations of the same stimulus has not been averaged out (there were no repeats of the same stimulus, of course, in these functions). The functions in Figure ?Figure33 and in Figure ?Figure44 are very comparable to those reported by West et al. (2000).