Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Haptics. 2016 Jul 18;9(4):515–522. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2016.2591952

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Subject 2’s accuracy levels as a measure of performance. Accuracy was calculated as (samples inside target range)/(total samples) while chance levels were determined with 1,000 simulated random walks. Mean chance accuracy values with error bars for the standard deviation are displayed. The subject’s accuracy is above chance level for 11 of the 13 non-catch trials. During the setup trial the subject had trouble mapping the cortical stimulation to the necessary motor response, but used the following 3 training trials with concurrent visual and stimulation feedback (shaded, trials 2–4) to explore the state space and learn to use the feedback. His accuracy dropped to below chance levels during the catch trial (same stimulation feedback regardless of the state) suggesting that he was relying on the cortical stimulation to achieve a high performance. Table 3 lists the stimulation amplitudes and ITIs for each trial. *Trials 13 and 14 used a shorter ITI for Stim 2 than the previous trials.