Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 May 15.
Published in final edited form as: Vision Res. 2012 Jan 16;61:77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.01.006

Figure 3.

Figure 3

An illustration of the task procedure in Experiment 2 for: (a) the validfeedback trials and (b) the fake-feedback trials. Although the task procedure in the valid-feedback trials was identical to that of Experiment 1, the task procedure in the fake-feedback trials involved an actual grating with 3% SN (unlike Experiment 1). Even though the presented orientation in the fake-feedback trials was not one of the two alternative orientations available on the response display, the subjects were given positive feedback if a pre-determined orientation was chosen. Each subject’s performance was measured both before and after training on three orientations, indicated in the figure: (1) the signal+feedback orientation employed in the validfeedback trials, (2) the feedback orientation that was pre-determined as the correct answer in the fake-feedback trials, and (3) the signal orientation that was actually presented in the fake-feedback trials. (The bolded arrow on the response display in the image represents the subjects’ choice.)