In order to diversify the degree of visual awareness for the facial stimuli, presentation duration was systematically varied.
Further confirming the fluency hypothesis, the experiment also shows that presentation duration does not affect the processing of experiential attributes but does affect the processing of functional attributes.
Participants were not allowed to change their selected answer once the initial 25-s presentation duration had expired and the confidence-judgment query appeared on the computer screen.
Therefore, in these training modes, the presentation duration of each auditory stimulus was substantially longer than that of the stimuli in the modes Prose and Melody.
Data collected included demographic data, clinical presentation, duration of symptoms and reasons for presentation delay, diagnostic investigations, operative and histology findings, length of hospital stay, and mortality.
Before moving on to other methodological differences, it should be noted here that even the presentation duration of the visual targets can modulate the contextual effects observed (Ahrens 1998, 2006).
In emotion research, presentation duration is particularly important, not only from a methodological point of view but also in respect of differences in information processing (Buhler et al. [2008]).
When the presentation duration was shorter than 1000 milliseconds (for example, 300 milliseconds in Ahrens 1998, and 300 and 750 milliseconds in Ahrens 2006), exhaustive access of ambiguous meanings has been observed.
The stimulus presentation duration was extended to 2 seconds across all conditions (algorithmic and cognitive, single- and multi-sensor) to allow the operator to sample all the information from each image and allow strategies of processing the information potentially to improve with time.
The presentation duration was set to 53 ms/item.
Consistent with their hypothesis, in one of the conditions presentation duration was longer.
