Figure 1
A. Examples of compound cue display containing G (salient) and X (nonsalient) letters (left compound cue display) and V (salient) and L (nonsalient) letters (right compound cue display). B. Examples of single cue display in Experiment 1 containing only the salient or the nonsalient cue presented in a neutral colour purple. C. Examples of single cue display of Experiment 2, presenting either the salient (red G and random blue letters) or nonsalient (blue L but a random red letter) single cue.
Figure 2
Example flow of Experiment 1 containing each of the display types, stimuli are not drawn to scale. It is important to note that in the actual flow of the experiment the trials are presented randomly within an intermixture of single and compound cue displays.
Table 1
Flow of the main experiment in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.
| EXPERIMENT 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TRIAL | DISPLAY 1 | DISPLAY 2 | VALIDITY (VALID/INVALID) |
| Trial 1–40 | Compound Cue learning display | Target display | 40/0 |
| Trial 41–136, random mix of: | Compound Cue learning display | Target display | 72/8 |
| Display resembling Compound Cue learning trials with either salient/nonsalient cue | Guessing display | – | |
| Trial 137–432, random mix of: | Compound Cue learning display | Target display | 180/20 |
| Single Cue test display | Target display | 40/40 | |
| Compound Cue learning display | Saliency Manipulation check display | 16/0 | |
| Trial 433–436 | Display resembling Single Cue Test displays with either salient/nonsalient cue | Guessing display | – |
| Short funnelled questionnaire: 6 questions | |||
| EXPERIMENT 2 | |||
| Trial 1–40 | Compound Cue learning display | Target display | 40/0 |
| Trial 41–456, random mix of: | Compound Cue learning display | Target display | 180/20 |
| Single Cue test display | Target display | 180/20 | |
| Compound Cue learning display | Saliency Manipulation check display | 16/0 | |
| Trial 456-464 | Display resembling Single Cue Test displays with either salient/nonsalient cue | Guessing display | – |
| Short funnelled questionnaire: 6 questions | |||
Figure 3
Top Row: Performance on target displays as a function of single cue display validity and cue saliency for mean RT (A) and mean error rates (B). Bottom row: Validity effects for salient cues as a function of participants’ achieved guessing score following single cue test displays for mean RT (C) and mean error rates (D). Error bars represent 95% CI from standard error of each condition as explained in Morey (2008).
Table 2
Performance in contingency awareness measures, indicated by mean absolute (%) correct answers in Experiments 1 and 2.
| EXP | AWARENESS MEASURE | CUE SALIENCY | t | DF | p (ONE-TAILED) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SALIENT | NONSALIENT | |||||
| 1 | guessing display following compound cue learning displays (max. correct answers: 8 per cue saliency) | 6.0 (75%) | 3.9 (49%) | 8.09 | 67 | <.001 |
| guessing display following single cue test displays (max. correct answers per cue saliency: 2) | 1.4 (71%) | 1.1 (59%) | 1.93 | 67 | .029 | |
| post-experimental questions (max. correct answers per cue saliency: 2) | 1.6 (82%) | 0.7 (34%) | 8.72 | 67 | <.001 | |
| 2 | guessing display, following single cue test displays (max. correct answers per cue saliency: 4) | 2.8 (71%) | 2.0 (50%) | 4.81 | 63 | <.001 |
| post-experimental questions (max. correct answers per cue saliency: 2) | 1.1 (53%) | 0 (0%) | 9.437 | 63 | <.001 | |
[i] Note: Exp = Experiment.
Table 3
Multilevel modelling results for both the experiments with reaction time and error data as dependent variable only for salient single cue displays.
| EXPERIMENT 1, REACTION TIME | EXPERIMENT 2, REACTION TIME | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | |||||||||
| EFFECTS | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC |
| Intercept | 577.19 | 9.80 | 58.89*** | 577.21 | 9.80 | 58.89*** | 561.41 | 8.95 | 62.75*** | 561.54 | 8.93 | 62.87*** |
| V | –8.61 | 3.14 | –2.74* | –6.13 | 3.50 | -1.75 | -3.8 | 3.33 | -1.15 | –2.95 | 3.17 | -0.93 |
| R | 6.89 | 7.43 | 0.93 | 9.34 | 4.33 | 2.15* | ||||||
| D | 5.13 | 4.09 | 1.25 | 1.24 | 2.70 | 0.46 | ||||||
| R*D | -8.06 | 7.94 | –1.01 | –5.83 | 5.94 | –0.98 | ||||||
| Model Fit | ||||||||||||
| AIC | 30841.632 | 30866.227 | 74434.641 | 74418.470 | ||||||||
| EXPERIMENT 1, ERROR RATE | EXPERIMENT 2, ERROR RATE | |||||||||||
| MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | |||||||||
| EFFECTS | ODDS RATIO | SE | STATISTIC | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC | ODDS RATIO | SE | STATISTIC | ESTIMATE | SE | STATISTIC |
| Intercept | 0.07 | 0.01 | –22.51*** | 0.08 | 0.01 | 10.66*** | 0.06 | 0.01 | –21.80*** | 0.06 | 0.01 | 9.57*** |
| V | 0.71 | 0.07 | –3.38** | –0.03 | 0.01 | –3.30** | 0.75 | 0.09 | –2.32* | –0.01 | 0 | –1.94 |
| R | 0 | 0.01 | –0.25 | –0.01 | 0 | –1.30 | ||||||
| D | 0 | 0.01 | –0.36 | 0 | 0 | –0.42 | ||||||
| R*D | –0.05 | 0.02 | –2.77* | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.88 | ||||||
| Model Fit | ||||||||||||
| AIC | 1561.057 | 690.520 | 2771.990 | –1732.221 | ||||||||
[i] Note: V: Validity, R: Previous Response, D: Distance from the last occurrence. AIC Akaike’s Information Criterion.
* p < .05, ** p <= .005, *** p < .001.
Figure 4
Results of Experiment 2. Top row: Performance for valid and invalid target display trials per saliency of the single cue display that preceded the target for mean RT (A) and mean error rates (B). Bottom row: Validity effects for salient cues as a function of participants’ achieved guessing score following single cue test displays for mean RT (C) and mean error rates (D). Error bars represent 95% CI from standard error of each condition as explained in Morey (2008).