Update on Diazepam Experiement(15mM) and T-Maze Experiment

on Friday, June 16th, 2017 4:35 | by

N=20

 

Print Friendly

Update on the Diazepam Experiment

on Thursday, June 1st, 2017 4:05 | by

Print Friendly

Updates on R,S,WTB tests

on Friday, May 26th, 2017 1:20 | by

Rover, N=3

sitter, N=2

wtb, N=4

longterm, N=13 (old WTB excluded)

R,S self learning traces, and longterm memory trace

WTB self learning traces, longterm memory trace

Print Friendly

update on self learning and longterm memory

on Monday, March 27th, 2017 2:07 | by

5 measurements on self learning from rover:

6 measurements on self learning form sitter:

10 measurements on self learning from wtb:

4 measrements on long term test from rover:

(right punishment)

3 measrements on long term test from sitter (fly stops a lot during test, this result may not be accurate):

(13:left punishment, 19: right punishment)

7 measrements on long term test from wtb

(left punishment)

 

Print Friendly

PKG rover update

on Friday, February 24th, 2017 1:48 | by

After adjusting the laser angle, PI got much improved. But, the test 2 phase shows a lower PI than test 1 in most of cases, the reason for that is still unclear. The following is the result of 9 measurements without drifting.

train1 PI: 0.50

train2: 0.42

test1: 0.39

train3:0.61

train4: 0.63

test2: 0.06 ???

 

Print Friendly

Sensory input and photopreference

on Monday, September 26th, 2016 1:29 | by

in order to test the relevance of different sensory modalities in photopreference and wing-clipping effect, I decided to test some sensory mutants. This is the result of the first experiment.

sensory-mutants

Print Friendly

Data analysis of the prediction of wingstroke amplitude with 40 datapoints.

on Monday, February 8th, 2016 11:38 | by

After we got the data of the behavior of the fly with strokelitude, we have made the analysis of 40 datapoints. Those datapoints were randomly picked in the middle of our dataset (10 minutes) and we made a second prediction, taking the points just before the end of the flight. For that we made a double correlation with those two predictions for each line and those are the results:

For the two control lines,

WTB x C105;;C232

wtbxc105doublecorr

UAS-TNT-E x WTB

tntwtbCorrelationdouble

And for the experimental line (UAS-TNT-E x C105;;C232)

c105tntCorrelationdouble

As long as the linear regresion decreases, more impredictable is the fly so its behave like non-linear function. The two controls are suposed to be more impredictable than the control line. There is more decrease in those two lines comparing to the experimental line, although is not too remarkable.

We also made an RMSE analysis, Christian explained it in his post. “RMSE measures just the differences of the absolute points whereas correlation coefficient is rather if the direction and degree of variation correlates (covariates)”

Here we have the plots:

WTB x C105;;C232(control)

wtbc105doublermse

UAS-TNT-E x WTB(control)

tntwtbRMSEdouble

experimental line (UAS-TNT-E x C105;;C232)

c105tntRMSEdouble

As long as the linear regresion increases, the absolute points differ from the prediction and the normal trace.

 

 

Print Friendly

platform resonance frequency and Gaussian downsampling

on Monday, February 1st, 2016 2:16 | by

clamptouchingplatform sd0.0012 sd0.0016

 

Print Friendly

Prediction analysis

on Sunday, January 17th, 2016 7:02 | by

CorrCoefIndiv

These are just 5 flies (WTBxTNT) from the strokelitude where I measured the correlation coefficient on the Y-axis. In the X-axis, first bin is from 0-2 s of prediction, second is 2-4s and so on.

It seems as if some flies do nicer than others. Although it seems to me that a correlation coefficient from 0.3 isnt a big thing with all this variability. I have to find out the best binning though, I think it needs to be much more in the short term.

mean

When I do the mean of the 5 flies measured, I do see a very slight decay. But once more I would say the decay is from the bin 1 to the second.

rmse

Here I tried another way, the RMSE, which according to literature and to my own reasoning should be a better analysis. I think RMSE measures just the differences of the absolute points whereas correlation coefficient is rather if the direction and degree of variation correlates (covariates). I find a very weird result. The fit is bad, the it gets better (but it should be just a chance event because correl coef decreases) and then it get very bad and so on.

 

I think for the future I have to make ensembles of two k neighbours maybe, which seem to increase the prediction power 10-15%. And maybe not look that much into the future as it was done here (10s).

 

Here some examples of predictions vs observations:

pred3 pred2 pred1

Print Friendly

T-Maze problems

on Monday, December 7th, 2015 2:25 | by

I am trying to spot source of the current behavioral problem we are having. I tested some crosses that I know how they behave. I did the crosses in both directions and tested to different lights sources (cold and warm) at 25°C.Untitled-1

Print Friendly