Table.
| Experiment 1 | Start | End | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p (“same”) | Same Identity | 0.86 | 0.60 | 0.76 |
| Different Identity | 0.50 | 0.31 | 0.39 | |
| Reaction Time | Same Identity | 0.746 | 0.772 | 0.806 |
| Different Identity | 0.829 | 0.782 | 0.828 | |
| Bias | -0.61 | 0.14 | -0.23 | |
| D-Prime | 1.20 | 0.80 | 1.09 |
| Experiment 2 | Start | End | Control 1 | Control 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p (“same”) | Same Identity | 0.91 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| Different Identity | 0.41 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.35 | |
| Reaction Time | Same Identity Different Identity | 0.763 0.804 | 0.815 0.826 | 0.796 0.822 | 0.798 0.818 |
| Bias | -0.58 | 0.12 | -0.12 | -0.18 | |
| D-Prime | 1.65 | 1.22 | 1.09 | 1.19 |
| Experiment 3 | Start | End | Control 1 | Control 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p (“same”) | Same Id entity | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.70 |
| Different Identity | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.39 | |
| Reaction Time | Same Identity | 0.738 | 0.741 | 0.756 | 0.757 |
| Different Identity | 0.784 | 0.768 | 0.771 | 0.773 | |
| Bias | -0.23 | -0.27 | -0.11 | -0.13 | |
| D-Prime | 0.95 | 1.04 | 0.98 | 0.83 |
| Experiment 4 | Start | End | Control 1 | Control 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p (“same”) | Same Id entity | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.72 |
| Different Identity | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.51 | |
| Reaction Time | Same Identity | 0.425 | 0.439 | 0.436 | 0.426 |
| Different Identity | 0.466 | 0.450 | 0.436 | 0.459 | |
| Bias | -0.49 | -0.38 | -0.27 | -0.33 | |
| D-Prime | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.59 |
*
Note that RTs in Experiment 4 were measured from the time Object 2 was fully un-occluded. However, subjects could have begun accumulating information during the 360ms partial occlusion period as the object re-emerged from behind the occluder; hence the faster RTs here than in the other experiments.