Display Settings:

Items per page
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Results: 10

1.
Figure 8

Figure 8. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean estimated 75% threshold SOA for the BGmix and TGmix conditions in Experiment 3. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
2.
Figure 3

Figure 3. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean estimated 75% threshold SOA for the Fixed and Mixed conditions in Experiment 1. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
3.
Figure 5

Figure 5. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean estimated 75% threshold SOA for Background (A) and Target (B) conditions in Experiment 2. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
4.
Figure 6

Figure 6. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean reaction time (RT) for Background (A) and Target (B) conditions in Experiment 2. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
5.
Figure 9

Figure 9. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

Comparison of the averaged threshold decrements from day 1 to day 2 for all conditions. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean. Fixed and Mixed are for Experiment 1. Background A, Background B, Target A, and Target B are for blocks A and B in Experiment 2. BGmix and TGmix are for Experiment 3.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
6.
Figure 1

Figure 1. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

Examples of test stimuli with a vertical orientation of a target array in the right upper visual field quadrant. In A and B, the target elements orientation is −45° oriented from the vertical, while it is 45° oriented from the vertical in C and D. The background orientation is horizontal in A and C, while it is vertical in B and D. In the Mixed condition, 8 combinations of background and target elements orientations were used (see text).

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
7.
Figure 7

Figure 7. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean correct response rate over various SOAs in the BGmix (A) and TG mix (B) in Experiment 3. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Each logistic curve was fitted to the averaged correct response rate across subjects for day 1 and day 2 in each condition just for visualization purpose only. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
8.
Figure 4

Figure 4. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean correct response rate over various SOAs in parts A and B in the Background and Target conditions in Experiment 2. Filled symbols are for day 1 and open symbols are for day 2. Each logistic curve was fitted to the averaged correct response rate across subjects for day 1 and day 2 in each condition just for visualization purpose only. A: Part A in Background condition. B: Part A in Target condition. C: Part B in Background condition. D: Part B in Target condition.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
9.
Figure 2

Figure 2. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

The mean correct response rate over various SOAs in the Fixed (A) and Mixed (B) conditions. The correct response rate for each SOA was plotted separately for day 1 (filled circles for the Fixed condition and filled triangles for the Mixed condition) and day 2 (open circles for the Fixed condition and open triangles for the Mixed condition). Each logistic curve was fitted to the mean correct response rate across subjects for day 1 and day 2 in each condition just for visualization purpose only. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean.

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.
10.
Figure 10

Figure 10. From: Interference and feature specificity in visual perceptual learning.

Comparison of day 1 and day 2 threshold SOA for all subjects in all experiment. In each panel, the x-axis shows the threshold SOA for day 1 whereas the y-axis shows the threshold SOA for day 2. The data below diagonal lines indicate that learning has taken place. Filled points are individual subjects’ data. Open points indicate the averaged value in conditions. The 2 panels in the top row are for Experiment 1 (the Fixed and Mixed conditions). The 2 panels in the second row are for block A and the 2 panels in the third row are for block B in Experiment 2 (the Background and Target conditions). The 2 panels in the bottom row are for Experiment 3 (the BGmix and TGmix conditions).

Yuko Yotsumoto, et al. Vision Res. ;49(21):2611-2623.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Write to the Help Desk