on Saturday, July 8th, 2017 1:05 | by

 

 

Effect of Diazepam Concentration

on Thursday, June 29th, 2017 12:14 | by

 

 

 

 

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

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

N=20

 

Update on the Diazepam Experiment

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

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

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)

 

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 ???

 

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

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.

 

 

platform resonance frequency and Gaussian downsampling

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

clamptouchingplatform sd0.0012 sd0.0016