ライフサイエンスコーパス: learning performance

1 mprehensively, demonstrating its competitive learning performance.

2 However STDP alone produced poorer learning performance.

3 om the discreteness of the bootstrap worsens learning performance.

4 reduced and even negatively correlated with learning performance.

5 ts on adult-born neuron survival to modulate learning performance.

6 uced enhancements of neural transmission and learning performance.

7 s adversely affect the evaluation of machine learning performance.

8 foraging behavior to behavioral ontogeny and learning performance.

9 dopamine release in the amygdala related to learning performance.

10 ris water task to determine baseline spatial learning performance.

11 teness of the bootstrap significantly affect learning performance?

12 mplitude strongly correlated with individual learning performance among aged rats.

13 aging measures were correlated with sequence learning performance and associated activation responses

14 Additionally, we determined whether sequence learning performance and associated brain activation in

15 aspartate)-receptor blockade impaired reward-learning performance and attenuated the associated incre

16 e contrary, they suggest that differences in learning performance and cognitive (behavioural) flexibi

17 icant negative association was found between learning performance and duration of disease (r = -0.451

18 ine the effect of a cholesterol-rich diet on learning performance and monitor possible related change

19 sed method achieves satisfactory multi-label learning performance and outperforms the existing phenot

20 albeit transient, improvement in subsequent learning performance and reduces amyloid beta (Abeta) an

21 ptor PET measurements is related to reversal-learning performance and sensitivity to positive feedbac

22 Sequence learning performance and task-related activation respons

23 urogenesis in rodents contributes to spatial learning performance, and in monkeys we found that spati

24 pocampal mossy fiber development and spatial learning performance, and that MARCKS plays a significan

25 ic receptors in the modulation of appetitive learning, performance, and motivation for food.

26 c innervation that is integral to appetitive learning, performance, and motivation.

27 e (72 hrs), CIE mice showed reduced reversal learning performance as compared to controls.

28 pproach we find that variability in reversal-learning performance attributable to different neural sy

29 l effects of pesticides including effects on learning performance, behavior, and neurophysiology.

30 that of a hyperbolic function, with reversal learning performance being poorest in either monkeys wit

31 use has also been shown to affect memory and learning performance, both in healthy individuals and in

32 Stress after placebo did not affect learning performance but reduced explicit task knowledge

33 TL improves the learning performance by combining a small number of user

34 include the need to carefully attend to the learning/performance distinction, to rely equally on syn

35 the hippocampus by the time that asymptotic learning performance had been reached (Day 6).

36 We found that whereas learning performance improved in the presence of counter

37 er working memory and probabilistic category learning performance in both CD and HC.

38 e-mediated knockdown of HuC impaired spatial learning performance in mice and induced a concomitant d

39 In addition, the drug alters learning performance in several assays related to episod

40 tive association between body mass index and learning performance in the food domain in female partic

41 ietary supplementation reflected on enhanced learning performance in the Morris water maze as learnin

42 rrently, fat-1 mice exhibit a better spatial learning performance in the Morris water maze compared w

43 HJ6.3 mildly improved spatial learning performance in the water maze, restored resting

44 or fewer days; suggesting a cost of enhanced learning performance in the wild.

45 Impaired learning performance in these subjects was associated wi

46 lony experimental design we evaluated visual learning performance of foraging naive bumble bees (Bomb

47 Enhanced learning performance of Pb2+-exposed animals reared in a

48 ly, oral administration of NTR1 improved the learning performance of the APP/PS1 mouse model of AD.

49 ings during infusion, levodopa did not alter learning performance or network activity.

50 -Phe CRF (12-41)], dose dependently impaired learning performance over a 30-min delay to 27% of vehic

51 ty correlated with concurrent improvement in learning performance (p < 0.02).

52 multicue-based procedural strategy, whereas learning performance per se remained unaffected by stres

53 hanges was highly correlated with individual learning performance, suggesting that interactions betwe

54 ring the light (sleep) phase, and influences learning performance throughout the day.

55 Factor analysis of learning performance variables determined that a single

56 We found that instrumental learning performance was significantly worse following s

57 inding that foragers benefited from enhanced learning performance, we found that fast and slow learne

58 transporter (DAT) availability and reversal-learning performance were measured before and after expo

59 PL dynamics anticipated learning performance whereas IL lagged, suggesting that

60 n decreased neuromotor abilities and reduced learning performance, which were associated with altered

61 ta synchronization is correlated with higher learning performance, while high-frequency synchronizati

62 transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups.

63 amatically improved sensorimotor and spatial learning performance without an obvious gender proclivit