Model-based and model-free influences on choice.

<p>We estimated the dependence of a choice at trial <i>t</i> on reward and transition events in trials t-1 up to t-3. These regression coefficients can be interpreted as model-based and model-free influences on choice, and larger coefficients indicate a stronger influence over choice. Firstly, all regression coefficients in the plot are significantly larger than zero, suggesting that model-based and model-free systems did not just rely on events on the previous trial but rather on events as far as 3 trials in the past. We did not observe any difference between Active and Sham conditions. Error bars indicate SEM.</p

Statistical power to detect true effects.

<p>We estimated statistical power in our study based on effect size estimates taken from the published literature. We could then compute the power in our study based on 22 participants and a false positive rate of 0.05 (two-sided alpha). Assuming any true effect of tDCS would have a similar magnitude as the studies shown in the figure, the current study had a power of 50–80%.</p

Contrasts performed on the full model.

<p>MF = model-free; MB = model-based; SE = standard error; χ² = chi-square distribution; df = degrees of freedom; Lag denotes the effect of time. Bold-face indicates p<.05 uncorrected for multiple comparisons.</p

Stay probabilities as a function of reward and transition on previous trial.

<p>Participants showed a pattern of stay probabilities characteristic of hybrid model-based/model-free control (cf. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086850#pone-0086850-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1B</a>) during both Sham and Active stimulation of dlPFC. Error bars indicate SEM.</p

Model comparison between a null model (one set of model-based and model-free regressors for both stimulation conditions) and more complex models that allow for an effect of tDCS on model-based control, model-free control, or both, which shows the null model is significantly more plausible than any of the models that allow for an effect of tDCS on behavioral control.

<p>The second column refers to the number of regressors in the hierarchical regression at the individual subject level (cf. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086850#pone-0086850-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086850#pone-0086850-t003" target="_blank">3</a>).</p><p>BIC: Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC: Akaike’s Information Criterion.</p

Voxel-based morphometry results for the <i>L</i> regressor encoding the sequence length individual subjects inferred over.

<p>5a,c) <i>L</i> was positively correlated with grey matter density in the left posterior parietal cortex (a), and bilateral hippocampus (c). Images thresholded at <i>p</i> < 0.005 uncorrected, cluster size <i>k</i> > 10, for display purposes. Slices depicted are at y = -80 (a) and y = -30 (c)5b,d) Scatter plots showing that both younger (crosses) and older (circles) subjects showed a similar positive relationship between <i>L</i> and grey matter density in both the posterior parietal cortex (b) and bilateral hippocampus (d) Grey matter density extracted from the group level peaks (posterior parietal cortex: [–29–80 39], hippocampus: [–23–30–17] and [21–30–12] collapsed across hemispheres), and corrected for all other regressors in the design matrix.</p

Turvallisuutta syöpäpotilaan hoitotyöhön : Omassa työssä oppimisen ja tutkivan kehittämisen tuloksia oppis-koulutuksessa

Tässä julkaisussa esitellään Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulussa 2014– 2015 toteutetun Syöpähoitotyön kehittäjä – oppisopimustyyppisen täydennyskoulutuksen kehittämistöitä. Koulutukseen osallistuvat sairaanhoitajat työskentelevät syöpäpotilaiden hoitotyössä erilaisissa hoitoympäristöissä. Kukin artikkeli kuvaa käytännön kehittämistyötä koulutukseen osallistujan omassa työyksikössä. Julkaisun tarkoituksena on herättää ajatuksia täydennyskoulutuksen merkityksestä oman asiantuntijuuden kehittämisessä, sekä kuvata tämän päivän hoitotyön ammattilaisten kehittämispanosta potilaiden ja asiakkaiden turvallisen hoidon toteutuksessa

Summary of effects found comparing three groups (normal controls, patients, relatives).

<p>For details of Bonferroni correction see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110136#s2" target="_blank">Methods</a>. Uncorr  =  uncorrected.</p><p>Summary of effects found comparing three groups (normal controls, patients, relatives).</p