Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
How individual quality masks functional trade-offs. The double-headed arrow connecting a true and counterfactual individual represents the ‘intra-individual functional trade-off’ (Wilson et al., 2014b). The double headed arrow between true individual A and true individual B represents the ‘inter-individual variation’ in quality (Q effect) that masks the intra-individual trade-off. For simplicity, the trade-off is determined by a single underlying morpho-physiological (M-P) trait that has opposite effects on the two performances (M effect). A counterfactual individual is one that is like the real individual in every way except for a change in the underlying M-P trait and the consequent changes in both performances. Individuals A and B do not differ in their M-P trait but individual B is better at both performances because of a difference in exposure to some extrinsic quality variable. This quality might result from something like differences in training or health status (for example, individual A might have a respiratory infection that both narrows respiratory tubes and decreases muscle contractility or motor unit recruitment).
- Fig. 2.
Heat map depicting the sign and magnitude of the Pearson product-moment correlations among the 10 decathlon events for the 611 NCAA athletes. The map shows that all correlations in this matrix are positive and of moderate to large value. Events: 1500 m speed, 400 m speed, 100 m speed, 110 m hurdles speed, pole vault (PV), long jump (LJ), high jump (HJ), javelin (J), shot put (SP) and discus (D).
- Fig. 3.
Heat maps depicting the sign and magnitude of the quality-adjusted correlations among the 10 decathlon events for the 611 NCAA athletes. Positive correlations are blue, negative correlations are red, color intensity reflects the magnitude of the correlation (see legend in Fig. 2). (A) Partial correlations conditional on all additional performance variables. (B) Regression residual correlations computed using the residuals of each performance trait regressed on the first principal component (PC1) scores. (C) Wright's uncorrected correlations. The values are equivalent to the covariances of the regression residuals used in B. (D) Wright's bias-corrected correlations. Note that the running performances are in units of speed and not duration. Event abbreviations as in Fig. 2.
- Fig. 4.
The distribution of the errors estimated by Monte Carlo simulation of the NCAA decathlon data. (A) Box plots with the median, and 50% and 95% intervals represented by the horizontal line, the box and the tips of the whiskers. PCOR partial correlations conditional on all other events; RR, regression residual correlation; WUC, Wright's uncorrected correlations; and WBC, Wright's bias-corrected correlations. (B) True quality-free correlation as a function of the Wright's bias-corrected estimated correlation. The blue lines are the 2.5%, 50% and 97.5% quantile regressions used to compute the 95% confidence intervals in Table 1.
- Fig. 5.
Heat maps depicting the sign and magnitude of the quality-adjusted correlations among the five performances measured for 28 soccer players. Positive correlations are blue, negative correlations are red, color intensity reflects the magnitude of the correlation (see legend in Fig. 2). (A) Pearson product-moment correlations. (B) Partial correlations conditional on all additional performance variables. (C) Regression residual correlations computed using the residuals of each performance trait regressed on the PC1 scores. (D) Wright's bias-corrected correlations.
Tables
Article navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
JEB and COVID-19
We are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on researchers worldwide. The Editors of all The Company of Biologists’ journals have been considering ways in which we can alleviate concerns that members of our community may have around publishing activities during this time. Read about the actions we are taking at this time.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.
In the field: an interview with Craig Franklin
We are expanding the Conversation series to focus on the experiences of researchers out in the field. We’ll go behind the scenes as researchers tell us about their experiences on trawlers, in deserts, up mountains and in the remotest regions of the poles. Find out more about the series in our Editorial.
In the first interview, JEB author and editor Craig Franklin talks about the risks and challenges of working in remote areas with animals in their natural environment.
Do you have an idea for a Workshop?
Our Workshop programme may be on hold for now, but we are welcoming ideas for the 2022 line-up. The proposal deadline is 29 May 2020, so find out how to pitch your idea to the Workshop Committee in good time.
Seeing the rainbow
A new Review by Carleton et al. demonstrates the remarkable external differences in eye design of teleost fish, which hints at the astonishing variety of retinal diversity seen in fish from both freshwater and marine environments.
How to promote your research
Publishing your paper is just the start of communicating your research to the world. Some researchers feel uneasy about self-promotion, but chances are your existing network is interested in what you’re doing – you just need to tell them! Sharing your work is useful and professional. Follow our 10 tips to get started.