Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 13.
Published in final edited form as: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:1327–1330. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346182

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Comparison of aiming strategies. (A) Strategy 1—aim from the most recently perceived visual feedback, which is four timesteps old. (Left) Hypothetical trial under Strategy 1. When applied to the current cursor position (unshifted), the aim-from-feedback velocity command (solid blue arrow) would result in the cursor (blue circle) missing the target (green circle) by 23°. (Right) Hypothetical results from assessing angular errors of shifted and unshifted neural commands generated according to Strategy 1. (B) Strategy 2—aim from current cursor position. (Left) Hypothetical trial under Strategy 2. (Right) Hypothetical results from assessing angular errors of neural commands generated according to Strategy 2. (C) Averaged angular error across 9,750 IZ trials. Decoded velocities had smaller angular errors when assessed from unshifted cursor positions than when shifted to originate from cursor positions occurring four timesteps earlier (p < 0.001). Neural activity was more consistent with Strategy 2 than Strategy 1. Error bars (barely visible) indicate +/− SEM (n = 9, 750).