Table 2.

Statistical results for the comparisons between the high- and low-contrast patterns for the inside, disruptive and average treatments for the LoG edge detector. (Values in each cell are the medians of the high- and low-contrast treatments, respectively, followed by the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test statistic and p-value. No results from the two-sample Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were significant. N=10,16 in all cases and critical thresholds for p for the tests were determined according to table-wise sequential Bonferroni correction.)

channel	disruptive	inside	average
LW	1.0, 1.0, W=200.0, p=0.380	2.0, 2.0, W=217.0, p=0.978	2.5, 2.5, W=226.0, p=0.587
MW	1.0, 1.5, W=199.5, p=0.375	2.0, 2.5, W=194.0, p=0.235	3.0, 2.5, W=227.5, p=0.523
SW	1.5, 1.5, W=217.5, p=0.956	2.0, 2.0, W=216.0, p=1.000	2.5, 2.5, W=238.0, p=0.217
LUM	1.0, 1.5, W=210.0, p=0.762	2.0, 2.5, W=192.0, p=0.196	3.0, 3.0, W=220.5, p=0.813
R–G	1.0, 1.0, W=217.5, p=0.954	1.0, 1.0, W=190.0, p=0.156	1.0, 1.0, W=230.0, p=0.451
R–B	1.0, 1.0, W=205.0, p=0.547	1.0, 1.0, W=213.0, p=0.891	1.5, 1.0, W=229.0, p=0.487
G–B	1.0, 1.0, W=186.0, p=0.073	1.0, 1.5, W=216.0, p=1.000	1.0, 2.0, W=208.5, p=0.698
B–Y	0.0, 1.0, W=194.0, p=0.219	1.0, 1.5, W=207.5, p=0.657	1.0, 1.0, W=222.5, p=0.742
R–C	0.5, 1.0, W=213.0, p=0.888	1.5, 1.5, W=209.5, p=0.740	1.0, 1.5, W=200.0, p=0.387
G–M	1.0, 1.0, W=211.0, p=0.769	1.0, 1.0, W=215.5, p=1.000	1.0, 1.0, W=210.5, p=0.781