To ensure this, we pre-tested the meaningfulness of our stimulus set on an independent group of participants.
Therefore, if we had jittered the position of our stimulus configurations on a trial-by-trial basis and not observed any learning, it would have been impossible to distinguish whether this was due to a genuine lack of perceptual improvement or simply a consequence of jittering the retinal position of the stimulus.
We note that unlike past work on regular beats, our stimulus trains lasted only three seconds (see Fig. 1), had a rapid rate of events (6 Hz on average), and even our "predictable" conditions never presented a regular isometric beat (instead following a sinusoidal distribution of intervals between successive events).
This was why we used a Bernoulli process i.e., random ON/OFF flicker as our stimulus.
Given our pattern of null effects of comprehension (i.e., context and inference) on eye movements, experiment 2b was conducted to test whether it was possible to get strong positive effects of cognition on eye movements with our stimuli and measures.
The RTC still responds with 85% maximum at 100 Hz, the highest frequency doublet that we could generate on our 200 Hz stimulus display.
It's a cognitive sleight-of-hand, capitalizing on the human body's propensity to calibrate new, unusual sensations to the memory of more familiar ones; with no other stimuli to go on, our brains interpret physical stimulus in ways we can recognize.
To simulate the reduced sensitivity to high spatial frequencies, on some trials we blurred our stimuli.
Based on our findings, death stimuli that activate caspases in myotubes would not only have to cause the release of cytochrome c but also inhibit XIAP.
Research on related stimuli [16] suggests that rivalry may occur with our stimuli in combination with the swapping procedure.
