3 ms·

>Study participants completed a four-word forced-choice test and identified the correct word in 34.8% of trials. The participants' recognition, defined by the a

>Study participants completed a four-word forced-choice test and identified the correct word in 34.8% of trials. The participants' recognition, defined by the ability to choose the same word twice, whether right or wrong, was 53.6%. Is this a good result?

xwdv 5y ago
A little better than a coin flip.
- _kulang 5y ago
  A lot better than a coin toss: same word twice out of a bank of 4 is 0.25^2, so 6.25%
  - adamjb 5y ago
    No, it's 25%. It doesn't matter what the first word is as long as it's the same as the second.
CyberShadow 5y ago
Two random choices from a set of four words has a 25% chance of being equal, so that seems significant.
TaupeRanger 5y ago
No better than chance, given the limited number of trials.
ChuckMcM 5y ago
Better than chance, so there is something there, but not super great so it's hard to say what is being measured. After reading the paper it seems that the biggest takeaway is that animal neural structures are sufficiently similar to human neural structures that they can process some of the same stimuli in much the same way. The other interesting thing for me is the possibility that you could modulate these signals for RF transmission (I do like SDR's after all) and with a cochlear implant, and SDR, a computer to receive the signals from the radio and feed them to your ear, and a rodent wearing a backpack to send the data. You could have a rat running around the place and the "operator" could listen in on whatever the rat could hear. NOTE: There are at least two, if not four decimal orders of magnitude of work needed to get to something like that if it is possible. Not the least of which is increasing the bandwidth/fidelity of the hearing interface.