Training under stimulus roving and transfer to untrained stimulus widths.

<p>(A) Fraction of incorrect network decisions for the combined training with two stimulus widths ( and ) which were randomly interleaved (‘roving’). In agreement with recent findings <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000617#pcbi.1000617-Parkosadze1" target="_blank">[12]</a> – but unlike previous predictions <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000617#pcbi.1000617-Otto1" target="_blank">[11]</a>,<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000617#pcbi.1000617-Zhaoping2" target="_blank">[13]</a> – learning under stimulus roving is impaired, although still possible (the final fraction of incorrect responses, being for stimulus roving, is reduced for individual training of the bisection width 5 and 9 to and , respectively). Note that the post-training test shows a better performance for the interpolated width which was itself not trained. (B) Learning curve for bisection stimuli of width (line), with pre- and post-learning tests for the untrained stimulus widths and . A learning transfer of roughly from the trained to the two untrained widths is predicted by the model. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean evaluated for runs.