We suggest inhibiting the first sentence away from part 3
We surmise that results obtained from the experiments described in this section cannot serve to understand the role of INaL in arrhythmogenesis.
1. Van Driessche W, Lindemann B: Focus dependency of currents as a result of solitary salt-choosy skin pores within the frog facial skin. Character. 1979; 282 (5738): 519-520 PubMed Conceptual | Publisher Complete Text message
This means brand new solid results put forward from this manuscript are not justified and i also usually do not agree the fresh manuscript within mode
The brand new experts has explained a number of the concerns We elevated during the my earlier comment. Regrettably, all the major troubles have not been managed by this inform. As i manufactured in my previous opinion, We deem it impractical that people activities shall be solved simply by the a number of added sentences. Rather there are still some standard questions into the experimental construction and you can, very significantly, for the studies.
It means the newest strong conclusions put forward through this manuscript was perhaps not justified and that i you should never accept new manuscript in this form
The fresh new people has clarified several of the questions I elevated for the my personal earlier feedback. Unfortunately, the major dilemmas have not been handled through this revision. When i produced in my personal past feedback, I deem they unlikely that all the individuals points is going to be repaired only by several additional paragraphs. Rather you can still find certain fundamental questions into the fresh build and you can, most significantly, into analysis.
- Top issue is if I used the fresh new breakdown of the ways in the last variation it had been you are able to in order to decode, with nearly best precision, people arbitrary stimuli names We picked. Look for having examples of that it reanalysis. Regardless of whether we imagine the actual stimulus searched within a later go out or are constantly changing between laws and you will quiet, the decryption is always close to primary. This can be an indicator that the decoding doesn’t have anything to accomplish into the actual stimulus heard of the Transmitter but is opportunistically exploiting more provides about investigation. The fresh handle research the new authors did, reversing the fresh stimulus names, you should never target this dilemma since it suffers from the same state. Fundamentally, just what classifier try allegedly using is the time who has got enacted because recording become.
- The reason behind that is presumably the writers made use of non-independent study to possess education and you may investigations. And when I am aware precisely (get a hold of part 3), haphazard testing 1 / 2 of data products of an enthusiastic EEG trace aren’t separate investigation. Recurring the analysis 5 times – the control studies the new people performed – isn’t a sufficient cure for target this question. At random selecting examples from a period of time series who has sluggish changes (including the sluggish wave activity one presumably reigns over this type of tracks less than these circumstances) often invariably consist of good temporary correlations. Come across TemporalCorrelations.jpg in for 2D thickness histograms and you will a correlation matrix indicating it.
- While the modified procedures part brings more detail today, it continues to be confused about just what investigation were utilized. Traditional classification analysis statement exactly what study features (usual columns on the research matrix) and just what observations (usual rows) were utilized. Things will be a component but typically this might be the new various other EEG avenues or fMRI voxels an such like. Observations usually are big date activities. Here I suppose the new authors transformed the raw trials to the a different place having fun with dominant parts studies. It is not mentioned in the event your dimensionality try shorter with the eigenvalues. In any event, I guess the content products (collected from the 128 Hz) were upcoming utilized given that observations and the EEG avenues switched by PCA were utilized just like the has actually. The fresh new stimuli brands was assigned because the Toward or Out of per shot. A set of fifty% away from trials (and you can names) ended up being chosen at random having studies, additionally the other people was used getting assessment. Is this correct?