Skip to main content
. 2016 May 11;36(19):5200–5213. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3619-15.2016

Table 2.

Experiment 3: replication of the results of Experiment 1a

Coherence 3
Coherence 4
Coherence 5
Global Local Global Local Global Local
Reaction times (s) 1.072 ± 0.041 1.223 ± 0.042 1.011 ± 0.046 1.215 ± 0.046 0.966 ± 0.044 1.186 ± 0.045
T(17) p value −3.6 < 0.01 −4.5 < 0.001 −5.3 < 0.001
Intercept >0 3.6 < 0.01 4.6 < 0.01 7 < 0.001
Errors (local task) (%) 66.3 ± 3 (interference) 21.5 ± 4.5 (symmetrical) 70 ± 6.1 (interference) 34.5 ± 7.2 (symmetrical) 71.3 ± 6.2 (interference) 15.7 ± 3.5 (symmetrical)
T(17) p value 8.4 < 0.001 2.9 < 0.01 8.3 < 0.001

aData are mean ± SEM. Results from the local and global tasks at each coherence value (Experiment 3), replicating the findings of Experiment 1. Reaction times are shorter in the global task. An ideal observer without any imbalance in accuracy between tasks would have shorter reaction times in the global task. There are more interference than symmetrical errors in the local task.