<Bob Clark (940628.1435 EDT)>
Tom Bourbon [940621.0943] Subject: Re: RKC-PROGRAM CONTROL
Bob,
...
Maybe I should use one of Martin's "alerting stimuli" on you. That
would force you to pay attention wouldn't it? ;-))
ASIDE
Calling someone's name is one of the standard ways for attracting
attention. "Force" seems a bit too strong, implying a loss of
control by the one called.
While on the subject, briefly, I hope, "attention" can be "attracted"
in many ways by many events. It seems to me that any unexpected
combination of sensory signals will get attention, but usually only
briefly while it is being evaluated for significance. The concept of
an "alerting system" seems to me quite unnecessary, although
meaningful for one desiring to "alert" someone else. Otherwise, such
events are readily described and understood without any special
"alerting system."
END OF ASIDE
program control deserves attention on its own. Twice, I've tried to
attract your attention on that subject,
At the time of your current post [Tom Bourbon [940621.0943] Subject:
Re: RKC-PROGRAM CONTROL] I had not sent my response of 06-21-94. Now
that you are back at home, you will have seen it.
I saw your previous post [Tom Bourbon [940603.1108], but it didn't
seem to call for comments from me. I no longer have a copy available.
Your more recent post, 940616.1640, included a summary of your
earlier post, so I am looking at that version.
In this summary several items are unclear to me (I am sure that they
are very clear to you).
I adopted a plan to create a sequence of four different
relationships between the cursor and target during a single
one-minute run of a pursuit tracking tracking task.
Does this mean that the computer generated a more-or-less standard
pattern that could be tracked with the cursor controlled by the
experimental subject? I think so.
And that the subject selects which of the "four relationships" he
will display on the monitor? And when they are to be displayed?
That's at least three different levels of control in the same run.
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here by "different levels of
control."
I decided that a change from one controlled relationship to the next
should occur every 15 seconds.
A signal ("beep") was used to tell the subject when he should change
the specific relationship he had been instructed to maintain.
You next described the four relationships the subject is to use. ok.
The run began, the "signals" occurred
and the subject followed the instructions.
I do not believe I used a "program" of movements. Instead, I used a
program of time-dependent changes in my intended perceptions of
relationships between cursor and target.
To your first sentence:
It seems to me that moving the cursor to achieve any desired
perception of cursor position requires that you have systems
corresponding to the connections between the handle and the cursor.
This might be termed a "program" of movements. But for the purposes
of this demonstration, you need not point out this relationship.
Surely some of your sub-systems are used in moving the handle to
place the cursor where you wanted to perceive it. Although both the
handle and the cursor must have been moving, briefly, your attention
was on the final position, not the movement in getting there. ok.
As to the next sentence, "Instead etc," I have no idea what you mean.
I am unable to even guess what you may have in mind.
Next you
did a second run, in which a random disturbance, never before
encountered by me, also affected the position of the cursor.
I am immediately curious as to the nature of this "disturbance"
whence it came -- was it in the computer? was there another
participating party? did it affect the connection between the handle
and the cursor? etc?
Also, in what way was it random? in its timing? in the nature of its
effects? etc?
And how did you achieve the property of being "random?"
I have included other comments in my recent post: Bob Clark
(940621.2125) Subject: Re: Re: RKC-PRO CONT.
I hope these comments are useful.
Regards, Bob Clark