m8ta
You are not authenticated, login. |
|
{349} |
ref: thesis-0
tags: clementine 042007 operant conditioning biofeedback tlh24
date: 01-06-2012 03:08 gmt
revision:4
[3] [2] [1] [0] [head]
|
|
channel 29 controlled the X direction: channel 81, the Y direction (this one was very highly modulated, and the monkey could get to a high rate ~60Hz. note that both units are sorted as one -- I ought to do the same on the other channels from now on, as this was rather predictive (this is duplicating Debbie Won's results): However, when I ran a wiener filter on the binned spike rates (this is not the rates as estimated through the polynomial filter), ch 81 was most predictive for target X position; ch 29, Y target position (?). This is in agreement with population-wide predictions of target position: target X was predicted with low fidelity (1.12; cc = 0.35 or so); target Y was, apparently, unpredicted. I don't understand why this is, as I trained the monkey for 1/2 hour on just the opposite. Actually this is because the targets were not in a random sequence - they were in a CCW sequence, hence the neuronal activity was correlated to the last target, hence ch 81 to target X! for reference, here is the ouput of bmi_sql: order of columns: unit,channel, lag, snr, variable ans = 1.0000 80.0000 5.0000 1.0909 7.0000 1.0000 80.0000 4.0000 1.0705 7.0000 1.0000 80.0000 3.0000 1.0575 7.0000 1.0000 80.0000 2.0000 1.0485 7.0000 1.0000 80.0000 1.0000 1.0402 7.0000 1.0000 28.0000 4.0000 1.0318 8.0000 1.0000 76.0000 2.0000 1.0238 11.0000 1.0000 76.0000 5.0000 1.0225 11.0000 1.0000 17.0000 0 1.0209 11.0000 1.0000 63.0000 3.0000 1.0202 8.0000 movies of the performance are here: |