Figure 1
Trial sequence. Participants fixated the centre of the screen and either no cue, a single cue or a double cue was presented, after which the target appeared. In Experiments 1 and 2, the double cue appeared adjacent to the fixation point. In Experiment 3, the double cue appeared above and below the fixation point. Participants responded by pressing the mouse button corresponding to the classification of the target letter (even, odd).
Figure 2
Results of Experiment 1. Left plot shows participants’ mean reaction times in the six experimental conditions. Right plot shows the alerting effect (difference between the no cue condition and the double cue condition). Error bars depict the 95% confidence intervals for within-subject designs (Morey, 2008).
Table 1
Mean of participants’ mean reaction time (RT) and mean of participants’ proportion of correct responses (ACC) for each experimental condition.
| EXPERIMENT | RT (ms) Mean (SD) | ACC (%) Mean (SD) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | No cue | Double cue | Single cue | No cue | Double cue | Single cue | ||
| 100% | 640 (76) | 600 (77) | 592 (69) | 94.0 (3.7) | 91.9 (4.3) | 92.4 (4.6) | ||
| 0% | 632 (75) | 591 (76) | 592 (73) | 91.8 (8.6) | 90.6 (8.7) | 90.6 (8.7) | ||
| Experiment 2 | No cue | Double cue | Invalid cue | Valid cue | No cue | Double cue | Invalid cue | Valid cue |
| 80% | 617 (80) | 583 (82) | 613 (88) | 569 (80) | 90.4 (8.7) | 89.4 (8.6) | 89.3 (10.2) | 90.1 (9.2) |
| 50% | 617 (78) | 583 (77) | 601 (83) | 577 (73) | 91.6 (8.1) | 89.8 (8.8) | 90.0 (8.3) | 90.6 (8.2) |
| Experiment 3 | No cue | Double cue | Invalid cue | Valid cue | No cue | Double cue | Invalid cue | Valid cue |
| 80% | 610 (67) | 576 (70) | 595 (76) | 562 (65) | 92.5 (5.0) | 91.4 (6.2) | 91.2 (8.9) | 92.2 (6.0) |
| 50% | 617 (69) | 583 (72) | 594 (75) | 567 (68) | 93.1 (4.9) | 91.5 (5.5) | 91.8 (6.2) | 91.9 (5.5) |
[i] Note: Standard deviations of the means appear in parentheses.
Figure 3
Results of Experiment 2. Left plot shows participants’ mean reaction times in the eight experimental conditions. Right plot shows the alerting effect (difference between the no cue condition and the double cue condition). Error bars depict the 95% confidence intervals for within-subject designs (Morey, 2008).
Figure 4
Results of Experiment 3. Left plot shows participants’ mean reaction times in the eight experimental conditions. Right plot shows the alerting effect (difference between the no cue condition and the double cue condition). Error bars depict the 95% confidence intervals for within-subject designs (Morey, 2008).