<p>The left two panels are for a small <i>R</i> value and the right two panels are for a large <i>R</i> value. Other model parameters remain the same in the simulations. The two top panels display the changes of the state variables as a function of trials. The two hidden states, a slow and a fast component, and their sum are plotted separately. The perturbation is applied at the 201<sup>th</sup> trial. The two bottom panels display the corresponding movement error, i.e., the difference between the model estimate and the actual feedback, as a function of trials.</p
<p>(A) Simulations to test robustness against noise in the PNs. Percentage of correct trials (i.e. t...
<p>Experimental data (left column) and model simulations (right column). Model predictions were base...
(a & b) Consequences of varying internal noise (Experiment 1): different panels correspond to differ...
Example MNIST stimuli at different noise levels, from left to right: 0%, 50%, 75%, 88%, 94%, 97%. In...
<p>In panels (a), (b), and (c) the filled circles show proportion correct and proportion of consiste...
The analytical noise ceiling estimator for the correlation coefficient in blue and its [5 95] percen...
<p>For each experiment number (#), the number of bifurcations (NB) is given under the heading Experi...
Testing the models: Simulated vs. observed effect of comparator noise on test performance.</p
<p>The metrics are (A) Bifurcation, or the number of transitions between phase-locked and phase-slip...
<p>The upper figures show a model estimation process for a bi-variate AR model (upper right figure) ...
<p>The Venn diagrams indicate how the variability is distributed across the 2 regressors where red i...
<p>Model-averaged predicted noise levels compared to observed noise levels (excluding research vesse...
<p>Shown are the success rates for three decay rates () and four different noise strengths () as a f...
<p>Each panel shows: 1) trajectories in the phase plane (left-upper part without noise, left-lower p...
<p>In this particular scenario, optimum is delayed relative to with phase shift <i>φ</i> and cont...
<p>(A) Simulations to test robustness against noise in the PNs. Percentage of correct trials (i.e. t...
<p>Experimental data (left column) and model simulations (right column). Model predictions were base...
(a & b) Consequences of varying internal noise (Experiment 1): different panels correspond to differ...
Example MNIST stimuli at different noise levels, from left to right: 0%, 50%, 75%, 88%, 94%, 97%. In...
<p>In panels (a), (b), and (c) the filled circles show proportion correct and proportion of consiste...
The analytical noise ceiling estimator for the correlation coefficient in blue and its [5 95] percen...
<p>For each experiment number (#), the number of bifurcations (NB) is given under the heading Experi...
Testing the models: Simulated vs. observed effect of comparator noise on test performance.</p
<p>The metrics are (A) Bifurcation, or the number of transitions between phase-locked and phase-slip...
<p>The upper figures show a model estimation process for a bi-variate AR model (upper right figure) ...
<p>The Venn diagrams indicate how the variability is distributed across the 2 regressors where red i...
<p>Model-averaged predicted noise levels compared to observed noise levels (excluding research vesse...
<p>Shown are the success rates for three decay rates () and four different noise strengths () as a f...
<p>Each panel shows: 1) trajectories in the phase plane (left-upper part without noise, left-lower p...
<p>In this particular scenario, optimum is delayed relative to with phase shift <i>φ</i> and cont...
<p>(A) Simulations to test robustness against noise in the PNs. Percentage of correct trials (i.e. t...
<p>Experimental data (left column) and model simulations (right column). Model predictions were base...
(a & b) Consequences of varying internal noise (Experiment 1): different panels correspond to differ...