Holcombe:TemporalNoise: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:Holcombe}} | {{Template:Holcombe}} | ||
== | *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 [[Holcombe:actionLiterature|temporal precision and action]] | |||
also see [[Holcombe:InPhaseTask]] | |||
also see [[Holcombe:ModellingUncertainty]] | |||
also see [[Holcombe:TemporalLimitsReview]] | |||
THE BELOW NOTES REFER TO DATA THAT ARE REPORTED IN: Linares, D.L., Holcombe, A.O., & White, A.L. (in press) Where is the moving object now? Reports of instantaneous position show poor temporal precision (σ = 70 ms). Journal of Vision | |||
[[Media:MiniposterHolcombeWhiteLinaresVSS08.pdf|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! | |||
[[Image:SlopesNoIntercepts.png]], [[Image:Slopes.png]] | [[Image:SlopesNoIntercepts.png]], [[Image:Slopes.png]] | ||
==Buttonpress (sensorimotor synchronization) vs. other tasks== | |||
*is variability consistently less than for 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 | Yes for ML, AH, DL poster data, by 20-30 ms. This includes dot-crossing predictive task | ||
DL in 3 different runs [[Image:ButtonPressTemporalNoiseDLAHoldnew.png | For data not in table above, DL in 3 different runs [[Image:ButtonPressTemporalNoiseDLAHoldnew.png]] 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) |
Latest revision as of 03:02, 2 November 2009
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
THE BELOW NOTES REFER TO DATA THAT ARE REPORTED IN: Linares, D.L., Holcombe, A.O., & White, A.L. (in press) Where is the moving object now? Reports of instantaneous position show poor temporal precision (σ = 70 ms). Journal of Vision
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)