Effects found in the data depend on model.
Markus Helmer
Vladislav Kozyrev
Valeska Stephan
Stefan Treue
Theo Geisel
Demian Battaglia
10.1371/journal.pone.0146500.g005
https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/_Effects_found_in_the_data_depend_on_model_/1638924
<p><b>A)</b> Nine features, measuring aspects of firing rate (first column), width (second column) and global shape (third column) in all three conditions were calculated for each cell on the basis of eight fitted models (model abbreviations are as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0146500#pone.0146500.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a>) and the “best model” (according to the ΔAIC = 0 criterion, see main text; abbreviated “bM”). Red (blue) indicates a statistically significant (not sig.) difference between two models’ values of that feature. Results from the spatially separated and transparent paradigm are plotted below and above the diagonal, respectively. The panels indicate that, in general, models disagree on the value of a feature, and, in particular, might contradict the optimal (bM) model. <b>B)</b> Histograms count for all feature pairs (depending on their category “sp.sep vs trans”, “sp.sep vs sp.sep” or “trans vs trans”) the number of model functions that find a significant difference (“effect”) between the pair. While mostly all models agree (counts 0 and 9) there are also numerous cases in which the presence of an effect depends on the chosen model.</p>
2016-01-28 12:57:06
attentional gain modulations
attentional modulation patterns
approach
MT
Noisy Data Tuning curves
response
model selection
data-driven methods