We surmise that results obtained from the experiments described in this section cannot serve to understand the role of INaL in arrhythmogenesis.
step 1. Van Driessche W, Lindemann B: Amount dependence of currents using solitary sodium-selective pores during the frog facial skin. Characteristics. 1979; 282 (5738): 519-520 PubMed Abstract | Creator Complete Text message
It means the new good findings submit through this manuscript is actually perhaps not justified and that i dont agree the newest manuscript in this form
The fresh authors features explained several of the issues We increased in my past comment. Sadly, most of the major problems haven’t been handled through this modify. While i made in my earlier remark, I consider it unlikely that those facts might be solved simply by a few added sentences. Rather you can still find particular important questions to your fresh design and, most significantly, into research.
This means brand new solid results put forward by this manuscript is perhaps not justified and i you should never agree new manuscript in this form
New authors have explained several of the issues I raised inside the my earlier review. Sadly, most of the biggest difficulties have not been addressed by this update. As i made in my past opinion, We deem they impractical that most those items might be solved only from the a number of added sentences. Rather you may still find particular practical concerns to the fresh framework and, very vitally, to your data.
- The number one concern is that when We followed the description regarding the ways in the earlier version it absolutely was possible so you’re able to decode, which have almost best accuracy, buy term papers people random stimulus brands We chose. Select getting types of that it reanalysis. Whether or not i imagine that real stimuli appeared from the a later on big date or are continuously alternating anywhere between laws and you will silence, the fresh decoding is always close to prime. This will be an indicator that the decoding has nothing to complete with the real stimuli heard by Sender but is opportunistically exploiting different have from the study. The brand new manage study the article authors did, treating this new stimuli labels, you should never target this matter because it is afflicted with equivalent state. Essentially, precisely what the classifier is allegedly having fun with is the time who has got passed because the tape started.
- The explanation for this is allegedly your article authors put non-independent investigation for education and you will assessment. Whenever I am aware correctly (select area 3), random testing one half of information samples away from a keen EEG shadow aren’t separate analysis. Continual the analysis 5 times – the brand new manage investigation the latest article writers performed – is not a sufficient answer to address that it concern. Randomly shopping for trials out-of an occasion show who has slow change (including the slow wave craft one to presumably reigns over these recordings around these situations) often inevitably incorporate good temporal correlations. Find TemporalCorrelations.jpg in for 2D occurrence histograms and you can a relationship matrix appearing that it.
- Just like the modified methods area will bring increased detail now, they continues to be confused about just what study were utilized. Old-fashioned classification investigation report just what analysis have (typical articles from the research matrix) and you will exactly what observations (usual rows) were utilized. Anything might possibly be an element however, generally speaking this can be the fresh new various other EEG channels or fMRI voxels an such like. Findings are usually time things. Right here I assume the latest people switched the intense examples to your an effective some other room playing with prominent parts data. This isn’t mentioned if for example the dimensionality are less utilizing the eigenvalues. Anyway, I guess the details samples (compiled during the 128 Hz) was after that made use of as findings as well as the EEG channels switched of the PCA were used as the has actually. Brand new stimulus labels was in fact assigned while the To your otherwise Of per sample. A collection of fifty% out of samples (and you can labels) was then chosen at random to have training, in addition to people was used having research. Is it right?