The Experts below are selected from a list of 108030 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lee Petherbridge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Response to ‘pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome’
Genome Medicine, 2014Co-Authors: Shine Tu, Christopher Holman, Adam Mossoff, Ted Sichelman, Michael Risch, Jorge L Conteras, Yaniv Heled, Greg Dolin, Lee PetherbridgeAbstract:A response to Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome by J Rosenfeld and C Mason. Genome Med 2013, 5 :27. See related Correspondence by Rosenfeld and Mason, http://genomemedicine.com/content/5/3/27 and related letter by Rosenfeld and Mason, http://genomemedicine.com/content/6/2/15
-
response to pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome
Genome Medicine, 2014Co-Authors: Christopher M Holman, Adam Mossoff, Ted Sichelman, Michael Risch, Jorge L Conteras, Yaniv Heled, Greg Dolin, Lee PetherbridgeAbstract:A response to Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome by J Rosenfeld and C Mason. Genome Med 2013, 5:27.
Elena Labkovsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
superiority of visual verbal vs auditory test presentation modality in a p300 based cit the complex trial protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2016Co-Authors: Xiaohong Deng, Anne Ward, Peter J Rosenfeld, Elena LabkovskyAbstract:This paper continues our efforts to determine which modality is best for presentation of stimuli in the P300-based concealed information test (CIT) called the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The first part of the CTP trial involves presentation of the key probe or irrelevant stimuli, and is followed by presentation of target (T) or non-target (NT). In Rosenfeld et al. (2015), probes and irrelevants regularly alternated modality over trials, but Ts and NTs were always visual. In the present study, (in both its experiments, EXP 1 and EXP 2), probes and irrelevants alternated modalities on successive trials, as before. In present EXP 1, Ts and NTs were always auditory, but in EXP 2, they were simultaneously auditory and visual. Probe P300 data were different in each study: In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) and EXP 2 here, the bootstrap-based detection rates based on probe-minus-irrelevant differences, significantly differed favoring visual probe and irrelevant presentation modality. In EXP 1 here, detection rates were the same for the two modalities. In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) there was no main effect of probe modality, visual vs. auditory on probe-minus-irrelevant P300 difference. There were such effects here in EXP 1 (p<0.08, effect size=0.19) and EXP 2 (p<0.02, effect size=0.31), favoring the visual modality. Probe P300 latencies were shorter for visual than for auditory stimuli in Rosenfeld et al. (2015), a trend specifically reversed in the present pair of studies. RT was faster for visual stimuli in the present studies. The T and NT modality appears to interact with probe/irrelevant modality, and the best protocol for detecting concealed information is with the 2015 study protocol or that of EXP 2, using visual stimulus presentation.
-
Superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in a P300-based CIT: The Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2016Co-Authors: Xiaohong Deng, J. Peter Rosenfeld, Anne Ward, Elena LabkovskyAbstract:Abstract This paper continues our efforts to determine which modality is best for presentation of stimuli in the P300-based concealed information test (CIT) called the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The first part of the CTP trial involves presentation of the key probe or irrelevant stimuli, and is followed by presentation of target (T) or non-target (NT). In Rosenfeld et al. (2015), probes and irrelevants regularly alternated modality over trials, but Ts and NTs were always visual. In the present study, (in both its experiments, EXP 1 and EXP 2), probes and irrelevants alternated modalities on successive trials, as before. In present EXP 1, Ts and NTs were always auditory, but in EXP 2, they were simultaneously auditory and visual. Probe P300 data were different in each study: In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) and EXP 2 here, the bootstrap-based detection rates based on probe-minus-irrelevant differences, significantly differed favoring visual probe and irrelevant presentation modality. In EXP 1 here, detection rates were the same for the two modalities. In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) there was no main effect of probe modality, visual vs. auditory on probe-minus-irrelevant P300 difference. There were such effects here in EXP 1 (p latencies were shorter for visual than for auditory stimuli in Rosenfeld et al. (2015), a trend specifically reversed in the present pair of studies. RT was faster for visual stimuli in the present studies. The T and NT modality appears to interact with probe/irrelevant modality, and the best protocol for detecting concealed information is with the 2015 study protocol or that of EXP 2, using visual stimulus presentation.
Jeffrey A Rosenfeld - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
response to pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome authors reply
Genome Medicine, 2014Co-Authors: Jeffrey A Rosenfeld, Christopher E MasonAbstract:An author reply to the Letter to the Editor from Tu et al. regarding Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome by J Rosenfeld and C Mason. Genome Med 2013, 5:27.
Xiaohong Deng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
superiority of visual verbal vs auditory test presentation modality in a p300 based cit the complex trial protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2016Co-Authors: Xiaohong Deng, Anne Ward, Peter J Rosenfeld, Elena LabkovskyAbstract:This paper continues our efforts to determine which modality is best for presentation of stimuli in the P300-based concealed information test (CIT) called the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The first part of the CTP trial involves presentation of the key probe or irrelevant stimuli, and is followed by presentation of target (T) or non-target (NT). In Rosenfeld et al. (2015), probes and irrelevants regularly alternated modality over trials, but Ts and NTs were always visual. In the present study, (in both its experiments, EXP 1 and EXP 2), probes and irrelevants alternated modalities on successive trials, as before. In present EXP 1, Ts and NTs were always auditory, but in EXP 2, they were simultaneously auditory and visual. Probe P300 data were different in each study: In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) and EXP 2 here, the bootstrap-based detection rates based on probe-minus-irrelevant differences, significantly differed favoring visual probe and irrelevant presentation modality. In EXP 1 here, detection rates were the same for the two modalities. In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) there was no main effect of probe modality, visual vs. auditory on probe-minus-irrelevant P300 difference. There were such effects here in EXP 1 (p<0.08, effect size=0.19) and EXP 2 (p<0.02, effect size=0.31), favoring the visual modality. Probe P300 latencies were shorter for visual than for auditory stimuli in Rosenfeld et al. (2015), a trend specifically reversed in the present pair of studies. RT was faster for visual stimuli in the present studies. The T and NT modality appears to interact with probe/irrelevant modality, and the best protocol for detecting concealed information is with the 2015 study protocol or that of EXP 2, using visual stimulus presentation.
-
Superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in a P300-based CIT: The Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2016Co-Authors: Xiaohong Deng, J. Peter Rosenfeld, Anne Ward, Elena LabkovskyAbstract:Abstract This paper continues our efforts to determine which modality is best for presentation of stimuli in the P300-based concealed information test (CIT) called the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The first part of the CTP trial involves presentation of the key probe or irrelevant stimuli, and is followed by presentation of target (T) or non-target (NT). In Rosenfeld et al. (2015), probes and irrelevants regularly alternated modality over trials, but Ts and NTs were always visual. In the present study, (in both its experiments, EXP 1 and EXP 2), probes and irrelevants alternated modalities on successive trials, as before. In present EXP 1, Ts and NTs were always auditory, but in EXP 2, they were simultaneously auditory and visual. Probe P300 data were different in each study: In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) and EXP 2 here, the bootstrap-based detection rates based on probe-minus-irrelevant differences, significantly differed favoring visual probe and irrelevant presentation modality. In EXP 1 here, detection rates were the same for the two modalities. In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) there was no main effect of probe modality, visual vs. auditory on probe-minus-irrelevant P300 difference. There were such effects here in EXP 1 (p latencies were shorter for visual than for auditory stimuli in Rosenfeld et al. (2015), a trend specifically reversed in the present pair of studies. RT was faster for visual stimuli in the present studies. The T and NT modality appears to interact with probe/irrelevant modality, and the best protocol for detecting concealed information is with the 2015 study protocol or that of EXP 2, using visual stimulus presentation.
Christopher E Mason - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
response to pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome authors reply
Genome Medicine, 2014Co-Authors: Jeffrey A Rosenfeld, Christopher E MasonAbstract:An author reply to the Letter to the Editor from Tu et al. regarding Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome by J Rosenfeld and C Mason. Genome Med 2013, 5:27.
