[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?
Glen M. Sizemore
(by gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com)
Mon Apr 9 07:00:07 EST 2007
"Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vJpSh.9917$Rg2.8015 from trndny02...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:461a2099$0$22551$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
> | "Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message
> | news:iUmSh.1726$OU1.1050 from trndny04...
> | > "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > news:4618d1a3$0$22574$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
> | > | <sigh>
> | > | [...]
> | >
> | > Thank You for your Work.
> | >
> | > My interpretation of the experimental
> | > design you posted is below.
> | >
> | > I'm probably going to go-head with
> | > this interpretation, so, if it's incorrect,
> | > please Correct it.
> | >
> | > 0. Start of the trial --------------
> | > - both keys are illuminated white.
> | >
> | > 1. Peck left -----------------------
> | > - right key out
> | > - t sec delay
> | >
> | > - [ken: Does t, above, vary trial-to-trial? If so, this's problem-
> | > - atical, because the other 'times' are fixed -- so, in the =overall=
> | > - training millieux, the 'randomly'-pre-Determined-trials actually
> | > - alter the non-pre-Determined 'times'.]
> | No, t does not vary from trial to trial. Why, BTW would it be
> | "problematical" if it did? Yes, it might alter the behavior of the
> | but why "problematical"?
> | > [...]
> Insensitive choice of words on my part.
> It has to do with the fact that the outcome
> of the trials derives-in the internal energy-
> 'state', not 'time'.
> If the 'time' varies, the internal energy-'state'
> [which is 3-D-Geometrically-dynamically-
> distributed; "3-D-Energydynamics; "3-D-E"]
> also varies [in a way that's coupled, 'deeply',
> with respect to the sum of the pigeon's pri-
> or experience.
> It's stuff that I developed in my own work,
> and which is not, yet, in the literature.
> The pigeon's interaction with the swinging-
> food-access-arm also tells that there's
> some previous extra-experiment training --
> because naive pigeons 'move away from'
> all such stuff when it occurs nearby where
> they are.
Yes, the pigeons are first trained to approach and eat from the feeder. They
must also be trained to peck the keys, either by differential reinforcement
of successive approximations, or by so-called "autoshaping." BTW, you are
right about pigeons; they "move away" from the feeder if you simply start
engaging it. I usually pile up grain in the aperture (with the feeder in the
"up" position) so it can be seen from anywhwere in the chamber (and the
birds, of course, are food-restricted). The birds are then allowed to eat
for a considerable amount of time (10-15 s) and the feeder is quickly
disengaged then engaged. Usually the feeder returns to the up position
before all the extra grain runs out and the process is repeated. Sometimes
you still get pigeons that are "hopper-shy," but it is relatively rare.
> I'll try to say it better as I compose my
> longer reply.
> Thanks for checking my 'understanding'
> on the experimental design, Dr. Sizemore.
> Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci