Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 28;12:4597. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24880-5

Fig. 2. Opposing effects of stimulus size on discrimination.

Fig. 2

a For family discrimination, each trial consisted of three images, two statistically matched. Subjects were asked to indicate the stimulus from a different category. We presented both large stimuli (top), and smaller stimuli cropped from them (bottom). b For sample discrimination, each trial consisted of three statistically matched images, two physically identical. Subjects were asked to indicate the physically different stimulus. c Stimuli cropped using circular apertures of five sizes were presented so that the closest edge was 4 degrees from fixation. d The sequential/temporal task followed an AXB design (is the middle stimulus different from the first or last?). e The simultaneous/spatial task followed an oddity design (which stimulus differs from the other two?). f Average proportion correct for four subjects performing the sequential family (red) and sample (black) discrimination tasks as a function of stimulus diameter. Shaded regions represent mean ± SEM across all trials. g Average proportion correct for four subjects performing the simultaneous (spatially displaced) task. Shaded regions represent mean ± SEM across all trials. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.