Table_1.xls (5.5 kB)
Download file

Overall localization performance of both monkeys.

Download (0 kB)
posted on 19.02.2013, 21:02 by Tom J. Van Grootel, Robert F. Van der Willigen, A. John Van Opstal

Means and standard deviations (in deg) of gaze-saccade endpoint distritbutions of azimuth (top row) and elevation (bottom row) responses with respect to the target location (origin of Fig. 6) for the first (left) and second (right) target flashes. A positive (negative) mean indicates a target overshoot (undershoot) in that component. Gaze shifts tended to slightly undershoot the target. Comparisons for a statistical difference between distributions were made between the same target components and for the same animal, based on a KS test. Static and dynamic double-steps had significantly more endpoint variability than single-step responses (p<0.05) in the majority of cases. The same holds for dynamic vs. static double steps. Endpoint scatter of monkey O saccades was larger than for monkey M (p<0.001).


Usage metrics