Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jun 28.
Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Aug;36(4):892–905. doi: 10.1037/a0017173

Table 3.

Mean Standard Deviation of the reaction times averaged over participants and over trial types for Expts 2 & 3. Averages were carried out separately for blocks in which the Compatibility effect is either ‘Growing’ or ‘Stable’. Paired student T-tests compared pairs of blocks (in italic).

Expt 2 SOA = 40ms
‘Growing’ ‘Stable’
Block 2 5.3 Block 6 13.4
29.4 3.2
11.4 6.2
10.8 4.6
7.3 15.5
5.1 9.6
14.8 16.5
7.9 5.3
29.0 7.3
15.1 9.4
10.3 7.4
17.6 12.6
t(11) = 1.3 p > 0.05

Block 3 4.7 Block 7 18.5
17.9 4.4
6.1 19.6
4.8 17.7
3.5 6.8
7.7 13.4
20.5 7.8
1.3 9.1
10.8 9.3
9.3 15.3
4.5 6.7
7.8 14.8
t(11) = 1.2 p > 0.05
Expt 3 SOA = 40ms
‘Growing’ ‘Stable’
Block 3 12.4 Block 9 7.9
6.5 4.6
3.0 7.5
11.0 4.0
4.5 2.0
15.1 33.6
2.3 10.8
20.7 6.9
16.9 18.6
6.8 7.6
16.4 15.4
5.5 27.3
t(11) = 0.715; p > 0.05

Block 4 5.2 Block 10 3.7
6.8 14.7
21.3 6.3
5.3 5.0
7.9 11.2
3.0 8.8
13.0 23.4
5.1 2.0
14.3 10.0
12.2 7.1
3.6 10.3
11.3 4.7
t(11) = 0.94; p > 0.05

Block 5 20.1 Block 11 7.4
4.4 7.4
15.7 34.0
18.2 37.0
4.2 8.1
5.4 1.7
6.3 1.5
15.5 5.2
6.9 3.4
5.5 8.6
4.2 14.7
13.4 5.5
t(11) = 0.4; p > 0.05
HHS Vulnerability Disclosure