## Re-analysis of Carpenter plots

Sara:

>> cd ..
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(correctos.t_reaccion(~correctos.dcha,1),20,’r.-‘);
>> hold on
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(correctos.t_reaccion(correctos.dcha,1),20,’.-‘);

Agh!

I take only the last 250 trials (see post “Learning for Sara”):
>> buenos=false(1,size(correctos.t_reaccion,1));
>> buenos(250:end)=true;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(correctos.t_reaccion(~correctos.dcha & buenos’,1),20,’r.-‘);
>> hold on
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(correctos.t_reaccion(correctos.dcha & buenos’,1),20,’.-‘);

## Amount of data needed to get a clean Carpenter plot

It seems that about 100 stimuli are enough to get a clean plot.

>> a=randn(1,50)+5;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(1./a,10,’k.-‘);

>> a=randn(1,100)+5;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(1./a,10,’k.-‘);

>> a=randn(1,200)+5;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(1./a,10,’k.-‘);

>> a=randn(1,500)+5;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(1./a,10,’k.-‘);

>> a=randn(1,1000)+5;
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(1./a,10,’k.-‘);

## Learning for Sara

>> cd ..
>> aprendizaje=correctos2aprendizaje(correctos,50,1);

Seems stable in the last 250 trials.

## Analysis of Eloisa’s 1000 trials with feedback

>> aprendizaje=correctos2aprendizaje(corr_filt,50,1);

A clear bias due to previous knowledge: Faster to the right from the beginning.

At least, seems quite stable.

>> [histog,bins]=hist_norm(corr_filt.t_reaccion(corr_filt.dcha,1),30);
>> close all
>> plot(bins,histog)
>> hold on
>> [histog,bins]=hist_norm(corr_filt.t_reaccion(~corr_filt.dcha,1),20);
>> plot(bins,histog,’r’)
>> legend(‘Right’,’Left’)

>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(corr_filt.t_reaccion(corr_filt.dcha,1),20);
>> hold on
>> t_reaccion2histog_carpenter(corr_filt.t_reaccion(~corr_filt.dcha,1),20,’r.-‘);

## ¡ERROR!

The program t_reaccion2histog_carpenter was wrong. All Carpenter-like plots in previous posts are wrong.