Holcombe:TemporalNoise

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 03:02, 2 November 2009 by Alex O. Holcombe (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Recent members

Alex Holcombe
• Ryo Nakayama



Technical

Skills Checklist
Python Programming
Psychopy/VisionEgg Installation Notes
R analysis,plot,stats
Statistics
Buttonbox
Buttonbox with photocell
Programming Cheat Sheets


  • 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)