A total of 21 comparisons were performed to assess the number of errors, the weight of errors (ie, the volume difference between test and reference stimuli), and the direction of errors (ie, over- or underestimation of test stimulus).
To diminish the effect of timing, the delta values between test with stimuli and corresponding baseline, defined as "changes" in the figure was used.
The "absolute difference" for CPM, was calculated by the difference between test stimulus before the application of conditioning stimulus (pre CPM), minus the test stimulus after the application of conditioning stimulus (post CPM).
To ensure a thorough evaluation of SICI [ 31], three different intensities of conditioning stimuli (55 %, 65%and75%75 % of RMT) were used, with an interstimulus interval of 2 ms between the test and conditioning stimuli [ 32].
Quantitatively, we classified AIs by the difference between the test and adapted stimuli, namely, the adapted hue (test and adapted hues were the same), adjacent hues (test and adapted hues differed by 90° on either side), and the opponent hue (differed by 180°), and performed a one-factor ANOVA with repeated measures in each visual area with test-stimulus conditions as the factor.
We found significant two-way interaction between time of test and invisible stimulus type F 1, 15) = 11.826, p = .004].
The differences between test with conditioning stimuli and corresponding baseline were calculated as delta values: △value = value (conditioned) – value (baseline), which was used in figures (A visual and B auditory test) as "relative changes".
Reliability is defined here as the inverse of the squared discrimination threshold, the just noticeable difference (JND), that is the minimal difference along a given dimension between a test and a standard stimulus that an observer can detect at a specified level above chance.
The response of the ideal observer on each simulated trial was chosen by computing the correlation between the test stimulus and each of the 36 action templates (4 actions by 9 actors), and then choosing the template with the maximum correlation.
The response of the ideal observer on each simulated trial was chosen by computing the cross-correlation between the test stimulus and each of the thirty-six action video templates (4 actions by 9 actors), and then choosing the template with the maximum correlation.
