Figure 1
Components of the external incremental input (top row), total external input (middle row), and response-code activation (bottom row) for both expected and unexpected congruent and incongruent trials. The vertical lines mark the time when the threshold is reached. (Detailed explanation in text).
Table 1
Contingencies between irrelevant stimulus locations and congruency, when one response is more frequent than the other.
| LEFT STIMULUS LOCATION (50%) | RIGHT STIMULUS LOCATION (50%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Left Response (frequent: 75%) |
|
|
| Right Response (infrequent: 25%) |
|
|
| effect of irrelevant stimulus location | mostly congruent (75:25%): stronger effect | mostly incongruent (75:25%): weaker effect |
Figure 2
Delta plots shown separately for frequent and infrequent responses. Shaded areas mark the 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3
Distributions of the AIC for the three models as fitted to the three experiments (the +attention model was not fitted to Experiment 3).
Table 2
Means and standard deviations of the AIC for the three models as fitted to the three experiments.
| EXPERIMENT 1 | EXPERIMENT 2 | EXPERIMENT 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MODEL | MEAN | s | MEAN | s | MEAN | s |
| preparation | 72.3 | 1.40 | 103.8 | 2.01 | 107.5 | 1.83 |
| + attention | 72.5 | 1.29 | 100.0 | 2.03 | – | – |
| + contingency | 71.4 | 1.34 | 98.1 | 1.66 | 101.2 | 1.72 |
Figure 4
Observed and predicted mean reaction times and error rates. Observed data are indicated by the horizontal lines for each of the four conditions, predicted data by the predictions interval (95% intervals of the distributions of the simulated mean reaction times and error rates obtained with 1000 runs, each one with the same number of simulated trials per condition as in the actual sample). For Experiments 1 and 2 predicted data are shown for three models as indicated in the insets, for Experiment 3 the +attention model was not fitted.
Figure 5
Simulated delta plots with prediction intervals (shaded areas) and observed delta plots (filled and open circles) in all three experiments and for all three models (the +attention model was not fitted to the results of Experiment 3).
Figure 6
Upper two rows of graphs: Observed and predicted mean reaction times and error rates for the +shielding model in the same format as Figure 4. Lower row of graphs: Simulated delta plots for the +shielding model in the same format as Figure 5.