Paradigm and Hypotheses

This document plots the results of a 30 min version of Online Cueing. Subjects completed 7 blocks of a simple exogenous cueing task. Subjects are asked to keep their eyes at the center of the screen and monitor two possible target locations on either side of the screen for the occurrence of the target. Prior to the target appearing, a random one of these target locations flashes white. Subjects are informed that this flash is random and meant to be distracting, and therefore should ignore it. Following the occurrence of the cue, the target appears. The target is a gabor patch oriented 45 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise from vertical, and is immediately followed by a visual noise mask at that location. At the end of each trial, subjects report which direction the target was turned and report how vividly they experienced the target using the Perceptual Awareness Scale. The scale has 4 points (colloquially outlined here): (1)no experience of the target, (2) something was there but I can’t tell you anything about it, (3) something was there and I have a good guess about what it was, and (4) explicit experience of the target. Subjects report the direction of the target turn using the n (CW) and m (CCW) keys, and the vividness rating using the 1-4 keys at the top of the keyboard.

This is a first pass at attempting to get exogenous cueing effects in an online experiment, with the addition of the PAS ratings to get some pilot data on how a visual cue changes the phenomenological experience of the target.

Note: all error bars are within-subject SEM. Subjects who had a d’ of less than .5 overall or more than 10% of trials marked as RT outliers were excluded.

Subject (N = 7) overall performance on cueing task, before exclusion

d’

Trial exclusion details

SubID remaining.trials trials_missing_data RT_excluded_trials
1 335 0 1
2 333 0 3
3 333 0 3
4 334 0 2
5 336 0 0
6 335 0 1
7 336 0 0

Cueing task accuracy (N = 5) after exclusion

Target d’

d’ for clockwise/counter-clockwise target judgement based upon cue validity (valid vs. invalid). Error bars are within-subject SEM.

Response Time

RT based upon cue validity (valid vs. invalid). Error bars are within-subjects.

Average Vividness Response

Average vividness rating, based upon cue validity (valid or invalid)

Vividness Response Distribution

Distribution of vividness ratings, based upon cue validity (valid or invalid)

Statistics

d’ ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
(Intercept) 1 4 46.004 0.858 214.405 0.000 * 0.969 0.982
validCue 1 4 0.597 0.599 3.988 0.117 0.291 0.499


RT ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
(Intercept) 1 4 3651161.015 1010600.042 14.451 0.019 * 0.782 0.783
validCue 1 4 4.036 8385.407 0.002 0.967 0.000 0.000


VR ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
(Intercept) 1 4 114.204 1.804 253.218 0.000 * 0.98 0.984
validCue 1 4 0.199 0.475 1.674 0.265 0.08 0.295