[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/Paper paper.tex

[Janne V. Kujala]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Janne V. Kujala <address@hidden>        03/03/21 10:50:21

Modified files:
        Paper          : paper.tex 

Log message:
        statistical significance

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex.diff?tr1=1.47&tr2=1.48&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.47 manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.48
--- manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex:1.47    Fri Mar 21 06:37:51 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/paper.tex Fri Mar 21 10:50:21 2003
@@ -1211,19 +1211,23 @@
 for comparison.
 
 The results were as follows: 
-for textures, 80 percent correct (12/15 correctly recognized
-as seen and 12/15 correctly identified as not seen);
-for solid colors, 53 percent correct (13/15 correctly recognized
-as seen and 3/15 correctly identified as not seen).
+for textures, .3 bits per trial of the old/new information got through 
+(80 percent correct: 12/15 correctly recognized as seen and 
+12/15 correctly identified as not seen);
+for solid colors, only .003 bits per trial got through
+(53 percent correct: 13/15 correctly recognized as seen and 
+3/15 correctly identified as not seen). XXX
 
-80, 53 fail to bring out the results correctly. Should
-use mutual information or something like that. In colors, the subject
-was basically guessing!!!
+%80, 53 fail to bring out the results correctly. Should
+%use mutual information or something like that. In colors, the subject
+%was basically guessing!!!
 
-Of course, this result is not statistically significant,
-but in conjunction with our experiences, it suggests that the
+Thus, the subject was able to recognize textures ($p < .001$) 
+while basically guessing the solid colors.
+Of course, the quantitative results have little statistical significance,
+but in conjunction with our experiences, they do suggest that the
 textures are quite recongizable while solid colors do not have
-enough variation for unambiguous recognition.
+enough variation for unambiguous recognition (without additional cues).
 
 The experiment measured the recognition of only 15 textures,
 and surely it would be harder to remember, e.g., 100 textures.