Table 1.
Fit statistics of different models for the three experiments and corresponding conditions in Hübner et al. (2010).
| Experiment/condition | Model | G2 | df | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1: | DSTP | 12.4 | 15 | 59.9 |
| Wide | Non-linear increase | 26.6 | 13 | 81.2 |
| SSP | 48.5 | 17 | 82.4 | |
| Experiment 1: | DSTP | 15.7 | 15 | 63.2 |
| Narrow | Non-linear increase | 42.3 | 13 | 103 |
| SSP | 56.2 | 17 | 90.1 | |
| Experiment 2: | DSTP | 7.86 | 15 | 50.3 |
| 1-position-central | Non-linear increase | 18.8 | 13 | 73.3 |
| SSP | 24.7 | 17 | 55.0 | |
| Experiment 2: | DSTP | 10.0 | 15 | 52.5 |
| 2-positions-lateral | Non-linear increase | 25.5 | 13 | 80.0 |
| SSP | 26.6 | 17 | 56.9 | |
| Experiment 2: | DSTP | 8.18 | 15 | 47.7 |
| 3-positions-central | Non-linear increase | 19.2 | 13 | 70.0 |
| SSP | 15.4 | 17 | 43.7 | |
| Experiment 2: | DSTP | 17.7 | 15 | 62.2 |
| 3-positions-lateral | Non-linear increase | 40.7 | 13 | 97.9 |
| SSP | 34.0 | 17 | 65.9 | |
| Experiment 3: | DSTP | 12.6 | 15 | 61.6 |
| 20%-congruent | Non-linear increase | 25.7 | 13 | 89.7 |
| SSP | 26.0 | 17 | 61.0 | |
| Experiment 3: | DSTP | 25.3 | 15 | 74.3 |
| 80%-congruent | Non-linear increase | 51.1 | 13 | 114 |
| SSP | 60.6 | 17 | 95.6 |
In Experiment 1 the spacing (wide, narrow) between target and flanker was varied, in Experiment 2 the stimulus position and spatial uncertainty, and in Experiment 3 the proportion of congruent versus incongruent stimuli. The values for the DSTP model and the non-linear increase model are reproduced from Hübner et al. (2010), whereas the values for the SSP model are obtained by new fits. G2, Wilks likelihood ratio chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; BIC, Bayesian information criterion.