Paradigm and Hypotheses

This document plots the control analyses of a 60 min version of Irrelevant Cueing, in which subjects performed a simple 1-up, 2-down calibration procedure prior to performing the main cueing task - adjusting the contrast of the target. For a full description of the task, see Cueing_Analysis_3Loc_All. We’ll be looking at whether the averaged-over task features, such as target location or target turn, matter for task performance. We will also be looking at whether conclusions vary significantly across the different iterations (V1 - V3) of the task. Data loaded is post-exclusion, leaving 90 subjects.

Plots

Target d’ by target location

## Automatically converting the following non-factors to factors: validCue, targLoc

Target d’ by target rotation direction

## Automatically converting the following non-factors to factors: validCue, targTurn

Target accuracy by vividness rating

## Automatically converting the following non-factors to factors: ConfidenceResponse

Statistics

We’ll run ANOVAs that include both cue validity (as in the main analysis) and task version, in order to see whether cueing effects vary based upon which target location is irrelevant - for d’, RT, and VR.

d’ ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
VersionNum 2 87 2.255 95.341 1.029 0.362 0.021 0.023
validCue 1 87 0.854 7.526 9.874 0.002 * 0.008 0.102
VersionNum:validCue 2 87 0.036 7.526 0.206 0.814 0.000 0.005

RT ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
VersionNum 2 87 555047.05 21370380.5 1.130 0.328 0.025 0.025
validCue 1 87 75128.06 429334.6 15.224 0.000 * 0.003 0.149
VersionNum:validCue 2 87 22552.00 429334.6 2.285 0.108 0.001 0.050

VR ANOVA

Effect DFn DFd SSn SSd F p p<.05 ges partial_eta_squared
VersionNum 2 87 1.572 83.092 0.823 0.443 0.018 0.019
validCue 1 87 0.120 0.548 19.044 0.000 * 0.001 0.180
VersionNum:validCue 2 87 0.009 0.548 0.741 0.479 0.000 0.017