Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 12;9:10. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2015.00010

Table 2.

Comparison between the saliency maps obtained for the rats and a simulated ideal observer.

Default Size Azimuth left Azimuth right Position left Position right In-plane left In-plane right
Obj.1
Rat 1 0.08 0.28* −0.20 0.06 0.22 0.27 / /
Rat 2 0.25* 0.36* −0.17 0.06 0.3* −0.09 0.22* /
Rat 3 0.18 0.57* −0.22 0.22 0.3* 0.19 0.24 0.51*
Rat 4 0.08 0.52* −0.13 / 0.33* / / /
Rat 5 0.25* 0.43* −0.13 0.03 / / / /
Rat 6 −0.1 0.35* −0.04 0.09 0.19 / / /
Obj.2
Rat 1 0.48* 0.34* 0.46* 0.4* 0.26 0.54 / /
Rat 2 0.51* 0.32* 0.5* 0.57* 0.45* 0.39* 0.55* /
Rat 3 0.55* 0.37* 0.43* 0.44* 0.36* 0.55* 0.62* 0.59*
Rat 4 0.33* 0.15 0.35* / 0.4* / / /
Rat 5 0.54* 0.26 0.43* 0.46* / / / /
Rat 6 0.41* 0.45* 0.12 0.36* 0.47* / / /
Obj.3
Rat 7 0.25 0.34* 0.54* 0.5* 0.33* 0.3 / 0.39*
Rat 8 0.33* 0.46* 0.48* / 0.44* 0.55* / 0.42*
Rat 9 0.49* 0.37* 0.57* 0.1 0.48* 0.37* 0.39* /
Obj.4
Rat 7 0.07 0.25 0.27 0.17 0.23 0.06 / 0.3*
Rat 8 −0.33* 0.04 −0.15 / 0.38* 0.24 / 0.42*
Rat 9 0.4* 0.12 0.44* 0.16 0.29 0.19 0.44* /

Pearson correlation coefficients between the saliency maps obtained for Objects 1–4 and those obtained for a simulated ideal observer. (

*

p < 0.05, permutation test).