Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 29.
Published in final edited form as: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Dec;18(6):10.3758/s13423-011-0167-9. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0167-9

Table 2.

Results of growth curve analyses comparing fixations to target and competitor pictures in the low–high and high–low grouping conditions

Competitor
Target
B t P B t P
Intercept
     Subjects −.054 −2.652 <.05 .030 1.935 <.10
     Items −.052 −3.208 <.005 .027 1.422 n.s.
Linear
     Subjects .019 0.257 n.s. .022 0.282 n.s.
     Items .023 0.309 n.s. .024 0.279 n.s.
Quadratic
     Subjects −.035 −2.914 <.005 .002 0.136 n.s.
     Items −.033 −3.186 <.005 .000 0.000 n.s.
Cubic
     Subjects −.056 −4.669 <.0001 −.029 −2.469 <.05
     Items −.056 −5.445 <.0001 −.029 −3.567 <.005

All models included data from 200 to 566 ms after the onset of the target word. B = parameter estimate