Table 3.
R2 | VAS od | VAS os | VFS od | VFS od | VAS ou | VFS ou | FFS | FVS | FAS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | 0.61** | 0.30** | 0.59** | 0.37** | 0.28 | 0.36** | 0.42** | 0.54** | 0.44 |
M2 | 0.49 | 0.23 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.40 | 0.44 |
M3 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.20 |
M4 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.20 |
indicates that model M1 is significantly better than model M2, i.e. using structural metrics alone, based on the p-values in Table 4.