Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Paradigm. A, The experiment started with a prestimulus phase (randomly between 1,200 and 1,600 ms) where only a fixation cross was presented. Afterward, the first stimulus was presented for 16 ms, followed by a stimulus offset asynchrony (SOA) and the second stimulus. After a poststimulus period (randomly between 600 and 1,200 ms), participants reported the position of the empty location. B, The different SOA conditions used in the experiment. The threshold SOA was individually determined to achieve 50% accuracy. C, An example of a full integration of the two stimuli.
- Figure 2.
Behavioural performance. Fractional accuracy is plotted against the different SOA conditions. The dashed line marks the 50% mark indicating the performance level we expected to see for the threshold SOA. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. A one-way ANOVA reveals a significant effect of SOA conditions (p < 0.001).
- Figure 3.
Phase opposition sum (POS) effects. A, POS values projected on a template MNI brain viewed from the posterior (left) and right and left view (right). The black outline indicates the significant region/virtual channels (p = 0.048; summed t values, 2,722.4; t value range, 2.07–6.57). The dashed line indicates the region of interest for statistical comparison. B, Averaged normalized phase opposition values over all significant virtual channels of the cluster (see panel A). The black outline indicates the significant time–frequency range.
- Figure 4.
Phase dependence of behavior. Normalized fractional accuracy plotted against the binned prestimulus phase. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of phase bins (F = 3.87, p = 0.005). The black lines indicate significant differences between phase bins in post hoc pairwise comparisons.
- Figure 5.
Phase dependence of ERF amplitude. A, ERF t values plotted against the binned prestimulus phase. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of phase bins (F = 3.4, p = 0.011). The black lines indicate significant differences between phase bins in post hoc pairwise comparisons. B, ERF amplitude as absolute ERF t values are shown for two phase bins. Bin 0 in light gray and bin
- Figure 6.
Correlation between peak frequency and threshold SOAs. A, Threshold SOA determined prior to the experiment plotted against the peak frequency (see Materials and Methods for details). Pearson’s correlation revealed no significant correlation (r = 0.25, p = 0.26). B, Same as panel A, but this time correlation between estimated fitted threshold SOA and peak frequency (see Materials and Methods for details). Pearson’s correlation revealed no significant correlation (r = 0.18, p = 0.423). The black line represents the linear regression, and the dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for the mean.
Tables
Data structure Type of test Power Behavioral data (non-normal distributed) One-way ANOVA CI 95% Phase opposition sum values, normalized (normal distribution) Cluster-based permutation testing CI 95% Phase binned behavioural data (non-normal distributed) One-way repeated ANOVA CL 95% Phase binned ERP data (non-normal distributed) One-way repeated ANOVA CL 95% Peak frequency values (non-normal distributed) Pearson’s correlation CL 95% The table shows for which data structure, we performed which test and the confidence intervals.
Figure 5-1
Individual ERF amplitude. Subplots show the individual ERF amplitude (black line) for each subject. Y-axis shows absolute ERF t-values and x-axis time in seconds. Grey lines indicate analysis window for N170 peak analysis. Download Figure 5-1, TIF file.
In this issue
