ライフサイエンスコーパス: learning performance

1 tral changes were positively correlated with learning performance.

2 ed whole slide images yielded the worst deep learning performance.

3 mode, engagement in off-task activities, and learning performance.

4 This, in turn, can impair students' learning performance.

5 g students' well-being, and supporting their learning performance.

6 he code to certain stimulus variations alter learning performance.

7 their chemogenetic stimulation impairs motor learning performance.

8 on and homogeneity and their effects on deep learning performance.

9 -tissue and cross-species zero-shot transfer-learning performance.

10 lue, in a manner that is directly related to learning performance.

11 mprehensively, demonstrating its competitive learning performance.

12 eased pattern exposure, and is predictive of learning performance.

13 However STDP alone produced poorer learning performance.

14 om the discreteness of the bootstrap worsens learning performance.

15 reduced and even negatively correlated with learning performance.

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

17 uced enhancements of neural transmission and learning performance.

18 s adversely affect the evaluation of machine learning performance.

19 foraging behavior to behavioral ontogeny and learning performance.

20 dopamine release in the amygdala related to learning performance.

21 ris water task to determine baseline spatial learning performance.

22 suggesting that this trait is favourable for learning performance.

23 ns and synaptic connections starts to impede learning performance.

24 sociative encoding of fan cells and impaired learning performance.

25 ternal validation and cross-dataset transfer learning performance.

26 neuronal activity, leading to impaired motor learning performance.

27 s the size of a neural circuit influence its learning performance?

28 teness of the bootstrap significantly affect learning performance?

29 Caffeinated free-flying bees show enhanced learning performance(6) and are more likely to revisit a

30 onsecutive days, allowing us to assess their learning performance across days, as well as continuousl

31 y outcome measure was the change in implicit learning performance across five sessions, quantified wi

32 The learning performance across time intervals was influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 I further provide a link between typical learning performance and principal components analysis i

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

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

44 Sequence learning performance and task-related activation respons

45 w of how neural excitability influences both learning performance and the internal structure of neura

46 er active learning, relative to more passive learning, performance and fronto-parietal brain activity

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

48 ntoparietal network is related to a boost in learning performance, and interference with this network

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

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

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

52 This increased learning performance arises from an increased valuation

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

54 We observed disassortative mixing by learning performance at the population level, and poor l

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

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

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

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

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

60 measures in HIV-1Tg rats, including enhanced learning performance but worsened risk-based decision-ma

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

62 otentiation of M(1) mAChRs enhanced flexible learning performance by improving extradimensional set s

63 The study evaluates advances in deep learning performance, clinical integration potential, da

64 arning with a partner can improve perceptual learning performance, demonstrating that higher cognitiv

65 Learning performance determined level of payment (i.e.,

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

67 Incidental learning performance during a rule-learning task on an a

68 During learning, performance errors are dominated by a choice b

69 nnectivity, typically associated with poorer learning performance, experienced enhanced learning outc

70 Here we found that reduced learning performance for higher physiological anxiety wa

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

72 However, the effects of neonicotinoids on learning performance have largely been addressed using a

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

74 ng mechanisms and are predictive of reversal-learning performance in adulthood.

75 st that such increased connectivity enhances learning performance in an associative task.

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

77 nstrate that age-related changes in reversal-learning performance in male and female Long-Evans rats

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

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

80 I characterize the typical learning performance in terms of the power spectrum of r

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

82 h significantly greater decrements in verbal learning performance in the hippocampus (r = -0.52, p =

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

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

85 nd spectral characteristics of sleep, and on learning performance in the single-pellet reaching task,

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

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

88 Impaired learning performance in these subjects was associated wi

89 a link between object-directed curiosity and learning performance in young horses in two very differe

90 ns in that smoking is associated with verbal learning performance more in women and cardiovascular di

91 proposed model of learning dynamics and the learning performance observed in a group of subjects dem

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

93 ons that can accurately predict the few-shot learning performance of naturalistic concepts across all

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

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

96 and analyzed how to further improve the deep learning performance of this contactless AI-enabled huma

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

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

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

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

101 In regression, reversal learning performance, random exploration, and poor evide

102 n grader as a reference standard, and a deep learning performance score.

103 390 with CNO prevented the enhanced reversal learning performance seen in the previous two experiment

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

105 emory, they did not approximate the boost to learning performance that has been observed in human par

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

107 Factor analysis of learning performance variables determined that a single

108 ng the class online is associated with lower learning performance via time spent on digital off-task

109 However, the hippocampal-dependent list-learning performance was directly associated with baseli

110 However, automated machine learning performance was poor on a subset of scans that

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

112 We found that automated machine learning performance was similar to that of manual optim

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

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

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

116 heart rate and alertness) were unrelated to learning performance, whereas exploratory behaviour towa

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

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

119 ausible plasticity rules that improve online learning performance with fixed random feedback connecti

120 Sapap3-KOs displayed heterogeneous reversal-learning performance, with almost half (n = 13/28) faili

121 transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups.

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