A Number Of Tips On How To Simplify 3-Methyladenine

The same pattern emerged across all subjects, whose choices in the combined condition were on average significantly less accurate than in the visual condition (for 70% coherence; one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank W = 54, p amount of evidence per unit time only affects the response time but not its accuracy, which check details remains unchanged. When increasing coherence, we observed a change Ceftiofur of both response time and choice accuracy within each condition (Figure 1A), supporting a bounded diffusing particle rather than a bounded posterior belief. In rare cases, the two model variants predict the same behavior (Drugowitsch et al., 2012), but this is not the case in our context. Next, we explore whether these adjustments in the SAT serve to maximize subjects' reward rate. Even though subjects did not receive an explicit reward for correct trials, we assumed that correct decisions evoke an internal reward of magnitude one. Therefore, we computed reward rate as the fraction of correct decisions across all trials, divided by the average time between the onset of consecutive trials. We proceed in two steps: first, we ask whether subjects have a higher reward rate across trials of the multisensory condition compared to both unimodal conditions. This is an important question because we have found previously that subjects accumulate evidence optimally across modalities (Drugowitsch et al., 2014), which implies that, with proper setting of the SAT, they should be able to obtain higher reward rates in the multisensory condition compared to the unimodal conditions. As shown in Figure 1B, reward rate is indeed greater, for all subjects, when both sensory modalities are presented than for either modality alone Sunitinib ic50 (both unimodal vs combined: Wilcoxon signed-ranks W = 0, p