Furthermore, error rates were overall higher for color than for orientation targets (5.6% vs. 3.6%), F 1,11) = 27.3, p<.0003, with the effect of the feature contrast manipulation being more pronounced for the color than for orientation: F 2,22) = 3.8, p<.04.
Furthermore, RTs were overall faster for orientation (353 ms) than for color (359 ms): F 1,11) = 7.4, p<.02, and the effect of saliency was more pronounced for color than for orientation targets (two-way interaction): F 2,22) = 7.4, p<.004.
Target-distracter similarity was parametrically manipulated using three different feature-contrast levels for color (high: CIE.595,.3323 23; intermediate: CIE.555,.367, 23; low: CIE.540,.388, 23) and orientation targets (high: 33.5°; intermediate: 58°, low: 67° tilt to the vertical), all with equal probability.
The present results demonstrate that single-pulse TMS administered at a sub-threshold intensity to the occipital pole contralateral to the stimulus can facilitate the visual processing both for orientation targets (at the time windows of 200 and 150 ms prior to the stimulus onset) and for luminance cues at the time window of 150 ms prior to the stimulus onset.
To address this alternative explanation, in Experiment 2 observers searched for an orthogonal-orientation target among single-orientation distractors, or for a single-orientation target among orthogonal-orientation distractors (Fig. 1b).
Observers might therefore be searching the fused image for a target containing orthogonal orientations among single-orientation distractors, or for a single-orientation target among orthogonal-orientation distractors.
If the search asymmetry in Experiment 1 were caused by faster search for a double-orientation target among single-orientation distractors than for a single-orientation target among double-orientation distractors, we should also have observed a search asymmetry in this experiment.
We regressed perceived sexual orientation onto target Race, target Sex, sample Population, and all interactions (see Table 1).
