Table 1.
Efficiency
|
|
Efficiency |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject |
Zero perturbation |
Medium perturbation |
Large perturbation |
| AAM | 92.2% (98.5%; 80.2%) | 103.5% (95.6%; 62.7%) | 102.5% (94.2%; 59.2%) |
| CAL | 107.0% (96.7%; 67.3%) | 92.8% (94.4%; 52.5%) | 82.4% (93.7%; 50.6%)a |
| JJT | 96.6% (99.6%; 84.2%) | 92.2% (97.0%; 68.5%) | 93.0% (95.8%; 63.0%) |
| MID | 100.1% (98.1%; 77.8%) | 93.2% (95.0%; 57.7%) | 93.6% (93.9%; 54.4%) |
| SSG | 114.7% (98.4%; 76.5%) | 99.7% (95.5%; 61.5%) | 88.8% (94.0%; 58.3%) |
| VVF |
93.8% (81.2%; 65.1%) |
109.4% (96.7%; 65.1%) |
113.3% (94.9%; 61.2%) |
Data are reported for the six subjects and three levels of task-relevant variability. Efficiency is the cumulative score in the penalty of 200 and 500 conditions in the near and middle configuration divided by the corresponding expected score of an optimal movement planner with the same task-relevant variability. The numbers in parentheses correspond to efficiencies for which the probability of correctly rejecting the hypothesis of optimality is 0.5/0.95 (corresponding to a type II error rate of 0.5/0.05).
a
Significant deviations from optimality (outside the 95% confidence interval).