Looking back at our hypotheses and looking at our results collected in our lab, I can see that our results support the first hypotheses regarding objective 1, but not our second hypotheses regarding objective 2. As seen in Figure 1 in the results section, we can see that during the prism glasses training trial we started off to the far left and gradually both participants got closer to the target. Therefore, this data can help support our first hypothesis. On the other hand, as seen in Table 1 in the results section, the post-training average error of both types of participants has a very small difference. Furthermore, looking at Figure 1, we can see that even though participant 2 started of further to the left in the training trial, they still …show more content…
This is because when you put the prism glasses on, our measurement is to the far left during training trial 1 error and far right during the post-training trial 1 error. However, as trials progress our ability to throw or point closer to the target increases. This is similar to the example used in the lecture where Michael hit the table and we all freaked out. This is because neuron A fired to neuron B which caused us all to freak out. However, when he hit the table again, we did not react the way we did when he first did it. This is because there are inhibition things coming from other neurons informing us that he is going to do it again, which causes us to not freak out again. This is similar to the lab because putting the prism glasses on gave us a sudden change that our central nervous system needs time to adapt to. Therefore, the measurements gathered from this lab, help provide evidence for short-term adaptation because in the graph you can see that the participant in both, training by throwing and training by pointing, have a large negative number for their first training trial and a large positive number for their first post-training trial. However, both participants are gradually moving closer to the target because they have adapted to the