Despite some improvement with practice, temporal acuity in this task does not fall below 20 30 ms in the best case, which is similar to the temporal resolution limit, and performance does not improve for comparison tasks with multiple stimulus presentations.
The second LV showed a task main effect (singular value = 152.44, P < 0.016, task demands LV, Fig. 6, see Table 2 for a list of local maxima), with positive correlations for temporal sequencing tasks and negative for comparison tasks.
The greater attentional demands could be inferred from the behavioral data wherein reaction times were longer for comparison task independent of stimulus modality.
In order to test whether the effects of remediation were different for the two types of comparison tasks (symbolic vs. non-symbolic), we ran post-hoc 2 × 2 × 4 (task × session × distance) ANOVAs for both reaction time and accuracy.
Specifically designed for problems with all-to-all comparison pattern, it not only saves storage space and data distribution time but also achieves load balancing and good data locality for all comparison tasks of the all-to-all comparison problems.
Negative saliences, indicating relatively more negative correlations for the comparison tasks, were concentrated on dorsolateral and anterior prefrontal gyrus (BA 9), and occipitoparietal cortices (BA 7 and 19).
However, a recent study [5], using nonsymbolic stimuli (dots), did not find higher parietal activations for number than for non-number comparison tasks.
The data for the number comparison tasks resemble the predicted outcomes for luminance contrast (see Fig. 2a and b).
The data for the luminance comparison tasks revealed a pattern similar to that predicted by the luminance hypotheses.
For the luminance comparison tasks, contrast sign interacted with instruction, F 1, 11) = 7.923, p =.017, partial η =.42, suggesting that the overall accuracy differed between the different task conditions.
For the number comparison tasks, a main effect of congruency was present, F 2, 22) = 5.614, p =.011, partial η =.34, and contrast sign interacted with congruency, F 2, 22) = 21.745, p <.001, partial η =.66.
