Stimuli were forward and backward masked to ensure that they were only visually discernable for precise presentation times.
The differences between constant-context and random-context conditions were significant for the presentation times of the squares of 10 ms, t(14) = 2.12, p <.052, 30 ms, t(14) = 3.36, p <.01, and 50 ms, t(14) = 3.20, p <.01 (always two-tailed).
The face test items were presented for 1000 ms, and the shoes were presented for 500 ms. Different presentation times were used in order to equate difficulty across the two tasks, because pilot tests revealed that the shoe matching task was easier than the face matching task.
The interaction was instead driven by the comparison of the high contrast images at 50 ms and 66 ms presentation times for P = 0.267.
Here, we assessed purely perceptual aspects in a same-view recognition task using frontal images by measuring reaction times for correct responses and presentation times needed to perform at an 80% correct level.
To convert between frames and ms, we simply multiplied the number of frames by the inverse frame rate, which can deviate from the actual presentation times for very small durations [56].
This makes sense because in these tasks children perform a tedious and sometimes difficult task with relatively quick presentation times for a sustained period.
In particular, the use of individualized presentation times for lateralized stimuli, that exceeded 200 ms in some cases, may have increased the likelihood of eye movement and therefore access to a target via both visual fields, although the likelihood of this occurring was minimized with monitoring.
You should sign up for a presentation time slot as early as possible.
For the presentation time by complexity interaction, a similar pattern was found, where all comparisons of complexity at each presentation time were significant (P < 0.001), so that high complexity images were always different from low complexity images at every presentation time.
