HH took charge of advisor position for paper presentation, experiment design, data analysis presentation as well English revising.
Instead, participants' working memory span predicted optimal choice in the simultaneous condition (which allows for more in-depth processing; Experiment 5), and a manipulation of processing load eliminated the benefits of simultaneous presentation (Experiment 7).
Thus, the results of the brief-presentation experiment are not affected by the sensory memory.
The temporal limit of rivalry remained unchanged as well when the two eyes' patterns were swapped between the eyes after every presentation (experiment 3; Fig 4).
To examine whether the results of the brief-presentation experiment are affected by the sensory memory [24], [38], we divided the original data into three blocks.
We used 2 experimental types in our investigation: single stimulus report with central presentation (Experiment 1) and whole report with peripheral presentation (Experiment 2), both with 2 types of stimuli: letters and digits.
A non-replicating virus was used throughout this study, in order to avoid the production of new virus that could interfere with cross-presentation experiments by directly infecting the antigen presenting cells.
Memory load was unlikely to be the underlying mechanism, as individual differences in working memory span did not predict optimal choice in the sequential condition (which places a greater memory load; Experiment 5), and manipulations of memory load did not reduce the benefits of simultaneous presentation (Experiments 6a 6c).
However, some minor changes to the target saturations were needed for some participants in the periphery intermittent presentation experiments (2&4).
For the antigen presentation experiments, peritoneal macrophages (5×105 cells) were treated with DNA (20 µg) for 0 h, 24 h, 48 h, or 72 h, prior to treatment with KLH (100 µg).
