Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Files - Raw Data

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1252v1/supp-1

Supplemental Files - Statistical Comparisons

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1252v1/supp-2

Supplemental Files - Assements of expert adjudicators

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1252v1/supp-3

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Author Contributions

Peter Visentin conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, funding.

Shiming Li analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables.

Guillaume Tardif performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper, recruited subjects, organized data gathering venues.

Gongbing Shan conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, funding.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The test protocol was scrutinized and approved by the Human Subjects Research Committee of the University of Lethbridge as the protocol meets the criteria from the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council. All subjects in the study were informed of the testing procedures. They signed an approved consent form and voluntarily participated in the data collection.

Funding

This work was supported by National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the office of Research Services at the University of Lethbridge. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies