Figure 1
An Example of a Couplet (Not to Scale).
Note: Two trials were performed for each couplet. Each trial began by displaying three boxes as placeholders for 200 ms. Subsequently, the width of the outline of the central box was increased as a fixation cue for 1200 ms (Experiments 1 and 3) or 1600 ms (Experiment 2). During the same period, a response cue indicating the response to make was presented in the central box. In Experiment 1, Cue 1/Cue 2 was a Chinese word indicating the left or right. In Experiment 2, Cue 1/Cue 2 were Chinese words indicating ‘press the left button for a target at the left location; press the right button for a target at the right location’ or ‘press the right button for a target at the left location; press the left button for a target at the right location’. In Experiment 3, Cue 1/Cue 2 were Chinese words indicating that ‘press the left button for an oval; press the right button for a rectangle’ or ‘press the right button for an oval; press the left button for a rectangle’. After an interval of 200 ms, a target was presented in either the left or right box, or the target was absent.
Table 1
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms) and Error Rates (ER, %) and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition in Experiment 1 (Detection Task).
| LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| RT | 317(39) | 338(47) | 313(33) | 331(47) | 334(42) | 324(42) | 325(47) | 317(33) |
| ER | 0.7(1.4) | 1.7(2.1) | 0.9(1.9) | 1.5(2.5) | 1.1(1.8) | 1.2(2.0) | 2.8(3.0) | 1.5(2.3) |
Figure 2
Raincloud Plots for the Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition and Response Repetition in Experiment 1 (Detection Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT.
Figure 3
The Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition, Response Repetition, and RT Bin in Experiment 1 (Detection Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals based on Jarmasz and Hollands (2009). The MSE was based on an ANOVA of the effect of the location repetition.
Table 2
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms) and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition and RT Bin in Experiment 1 (Detection Task).
| RT BIN | LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| 12.5% | 222(48) | 219(47) | 216(43) | 207(59) | 228(60) | 227(50) | 225(47) | 207(54) |
| 25% | 261(31) | 270(42) | 263(25) | 265(40) | 277(36) | 266(36) | 276(31) | 260(32) |
| 37.5% | 286(30) | 297(34) | 283(27) | 294(37) | 299(33) | 293(36) | 301(37) | 287(27) |
| 50% | 306(35) | 323(39) | 305(31) | 318(41) | 323(40) | 313(39) | 323(45) | 306(31) |
| 62.5% | 327(41) | 349(52) | 323(34) | 342(52) | 347(47) | 336(49) | 349(53) | 327(38) |
| 75% | 347(46) | 375(63) | 349(48) | 376(66) | 377(51) | 358(58) | 376(62) | 352(45) |
| 87.5% | 389(63) | 423(81) | 388(65) | 421(76) | 428(67) | 399(70) | 416(75) | 396(68) |
| 100% | 479(100) | 520(93) | 469(87) | 524(100) | 538(106) | 496(96) | 497(99) | 500(99) |
Table 3
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms) and Error Rates (ER, %) and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition in Experiment 2 (Localization Task).
| LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| RT | 457(83) | 508(108) | 465(83) | 519(100) | 528(111) | 478(100) | 549(117) | 488(106) |
| ER | 1.2(2.1) | 5.9(5.4) | 1.1(1.5) | 5.3(4.3) | 5.0(4.7) | 2.5(2.7) | 6.2(6.3) | 1.8(4.2) |
Figure 4
Raincloud Plots for the Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition and Response Repetition in Experiment 2 (Localization Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT.
Figure 5
Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition, Response Repetition, and RT Bin in Experiment 2 (Localization Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals based on Jarmasz and Hollands (2009). The MSE was based on an ANOVA of the effect of the location repetition.
Table 4
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms) and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition and RT Bin in Experiment 2 (Localization Task).
| RT BIN | LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| 12.5% | 350(56) | 345(60) | 348(63) | 348(68) | 360(73) | 335(73) | 359(76) | 344(74) |
| 25% | 385(62) | 396(73) | 384(65) | 398(71) | 405(81) | 384(83) | 414(93) | 390(84) |
| 37.5% | 412(71) | 440(84) | 412(70) | 442(77) | 444(93) | 422(87) | 461(99) | 431(96) |
| 50% | 440(77) | 488(99) | 448(78) | 488(89) | 495(105) | 456(91) | 524(115) | 471(104) |
| 62.5% | 481(91) | 534(117) | 484(86) | 552(110) | 555(115) | 498(109) | 576(123) | 508(108) |
| 75% | 530(112) | 602(126) | 539(111) | 621(117) | 625(129) | 560(126) | 649(145) | 561(116) |
| 87.5% | 614(139) | 712(163) | 618(147) | 707(126) | 739(148) | 646(146) | 754(175) | 651(153) |
| 100% | 810(185) | 892(223) | 804(208) | 940(189) | 1001(237) | 815(196) | 983(249) | 848(225) |
Table 5
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms), Error Rates (ER, %), and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition in Experiment 3 (Discrimination Task).
| LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| RT | 569(98) | 695(143) | 744(122) | 652(103) | 628(117) | 656(127) | 761(139) | 666(104) |
| ER | 5.1(5.1) | 10.2(7.7) | 14.0(7.3) | 6.1(4.8) | 7.7(7.0) | 6.5(6.1) | 14.6(9.8) | 6.2(6.0) |
Figure 6
Raincloud Plots for the Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition When the Response was Repeated or Unrepeated in Experiment 3 (Discrimination Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT.
Table 6
Averaged Median Correct Response Times (RT, in ms) and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) as a Function of Location, Form, and Response Repetition and RT Bin in Experiment 3 (Discrimination Task).
| RT BIN | LOCATION REPEATED | LOCATION UNREPEATED | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | FORM REPEATED | FORM UNREPEATED | |||||
| RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | RESPONSE REPEATED | RESPONSE UNREPEATED | |
| 12.5% | 389(63) | 428(82) | 483(94) | 463(86) | 412(76) | 405(79) | 477(111) | 427(77) |
| 25% | 442(73) | 517(92) | 566(104) | 534(79) | 474(85) | 491(93) | 567(123) | 528(98) |
| 37.5% | 482(85) | 591(105) | 625(109) | 580(92) | 530(88) | 552(108) | 639(128) | 578(99) |
| 50% | 531(89) | 656(121) | 708(114) | 626(98) | 597(111) | 623(121) | 720(136) | 637(97) |
| 62.5% | 600(103) | 730(150) | 787(125) | 675(109) | 661(125) | 694(132) | 799(154) | 695(108) |
| 75% | 591(134) | 824(166) | 891(166) | 747(132) | 756(137) | 795(158) | 885(175) | 760(124) |
| 87.5% | 822(173) | 952(186) | 1022(204) | 828(143) | 905(174) | 911(191) | 1033(210) | 868(167) |
| 100% | 1064(261) | 1182(247) | 1254(220) | 1095(243) | 1151(213) | 1201(244) | 1280(237) | 1130(249) |
Figure 7
Effect of Location Repetition as a Function of Form Repetition, Response Repetition, and RT Bin in Experiment 3 (Discrimination Task).
Note: Effect of location repetition = unrepeated-location RT – repeated-location RT. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals based on Jarmasz and Hollands (2009). The MSE was based on an ANOVA of the effect of the location repetition.