Table 1.
Testing condition | minus | Reference condition | |
---|---|---|---|
Network effects | |||
Alerting | No cue | Double cue | |
Disengaging | Invalid cue | Double cue | |
Moving + Engaging a | Double cue | Valid cue | |
Validity b | Invalid cue | Valid cue | |
Conflict | Incongruent | Congruent | |
Interactions | |||
Alerting by Flanker Conflict | No cue, incongruent | Double cue, incongruent | |
minus | minus | ||
No cue, congruent | Double cue, congruent | ||
Validity by Flanker Conflict | Invalid cue, incongruent | Valid cue, incongruent | |
minus | minus | ||
Invalid cue, congruent | Valid cue, congruent |
The “Moving + Engaging” is equivalent to the “orienting” effect originally defined in (Fan et al., 2009). However, here we defined the orienting effect with the disengaging component included, which is the validity effect.
The validity effect = Disengaging + (Moving + Engaging).