Holcombe:TemporalNoise: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Temporal noise for every subject== | ==Temporal noise for every subject== | ||
Col change: 76 ms | |||
Sound: 65 ms | |||
Predictive: 86 ms | |||
Button press: 64 ms | |||
These slopes are wrong for AH with buttonpress! | These slopes are wrong for AH with buttonpress! | ||
[[Image:SlopesNoIntercepts.png]], [[Image:Slopes.png]] | [[Image:SlopesNoIntercepts.png]], [[Image:Slopes.png]] |
Revision as of 22:29, 16 November 2008
Recent members• Alex Holcombe
|
Projects• Testing Booth Calendar |
|
Technical• Skills Checklist |
Other• Plots,Graphs
|
- Check gradually varying of two patches, have to judge orientation of second when one is vertical, also look up std dev of Arnold tilt orientation
- Try independently varying orientation of the two moving/stationary patterns across trials, like Keeble & Nishida
also see temporal precision and action also see Holcombe:InPhaseTask also see Holcombe:ModellingUncertainty also see Holcombe:TemporalLimitsReview
Holcombe,White,Linares VSS 2008 poster on this topic, data below is subset i think
Method
-Screens:
Radius experiment: 800x600 at 160 Hz (Mitsubishi)
The rest of the experiments: 800x600 at 120 Hz (ViewSonic)
Temporal noise for every subject
Col change: 76 ms Sound: 65 ms Predictive: 86 ms Button press: 64 ms
These slopes are wrong for AH with buttonpress! ,
Buttonpress (sensorimotor synchronization) vs. other tasks
- is variability consistently less than for other tasks?
Yes for ML, AH, DL poster data, by 20-30 ms. This includes dot-crossing predictive task For data not in table above, DL in 3 different runs shows low temporal noise, and AH ended up with better temporal noise (i think this was partially a data analysis error; Dani has now fixed it)