ELECTRIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL for:
Preference suppression caused by misattribution of task-irrelevant subliminal motion
AUTHORS AND ADDRESSES
Kazuhisa Shibata and Takeo Watanabe
Department of Psychology, Boston University
64 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Takeo Watanabe
takeo@bu.edu
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure S1. Methods and results of Experiment 3. (a) Preferential decision and rating.
In the binary decision stage, subjects were asked to choose a preferred face (left or
right) and press a button on a joystick when the decision was made, without moving
the joystick. In the rating stage, the subjects were asked to report the preferred face (L
for left, R for right) and relative preference of the preferred face on a five-point scale.
(b) Mean response bias index in the binary decision stage. (c) Mean difference in
relative preferences between the two response types (congruent – incongruent).
Figure S2. Supplementary results of Experiment 1. (a) Mean response times for the
congruent (red) and incongruent (blue) response trials in the binary decision stage.
Error bars represent SEM. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures showed no
significant effect of response type, coherence level, or interaction of those two factors
(P > 0.5507). This tendency in response time was observed in all the experiments of
this study. (b) Mean relative preferences for the congruent and incongruent response
trials in the rating stage.
Figure S3. Supplementary results of Experiment 4. (a) Mean response bias indices in
the binary decision stage. The indices were significantly different among five
coherence levels (5, 10, 20, 50, 100%; one-way ANOVA with repeated measures, P =
0.0101). Post-hoc t-test revealed that the number of responses was significantly biased
toward the direction of task-irrelevant visual motion at the 5% coherence level (P =
0.013, Bonferroni corrected), but not at higher coherence levels (P > 0.3280). Error
bars represent SEM. (b) Mean difference in relative preferences between the two
response types (congruent – incongruent). Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures
revealed significant effects of response type (P = 0.0071) and interaction between
response type and coherence level (P = 0.0205), but no significant effect of coherence
level (P = 0.8232). Post-hoc t-test showed the mean relative preference was
significantly larger in the congruent response trials than in the incongruent response
trials only when coherence level was 5% (P = 0.024, Bonferroni corrected), but not at
higher coherence levels (P > 0.2035). (c) Mean relative preferences for the congruent
response (red), incongruent response (blue), and baseline (green) trials in the rating
stage.
Figure S4. Motion direction discrimination performance in Experiment 5. Error bars
represent SEM.
Figure S5. Supplementary results of the facial preference decision task in Experiment
6. (a) Mean response bias indices in the binary decision stage. The indices were
significantly different among five coherence levels (5, 10, 20, 50, 100%; one-way
ANOVA with repeated measures, P = 0.0246). Post-hoc t-test revealed that the
number of responses was significantly biased toward the direction of task-irrelevant
visual motion at the 5% coherence level (P = 0.006, Bonferroni corrected), but not at
higher coherence levels (P > 0.1648). Error bars represent SEM. (b) Mean difference
in relative preferences between the two response types (congruent – incongruent).
Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed a significant effect of interaction
between response type and coherence level (P = 0.0265), but no significant effect of
response type (P = 0.3001) and coherence level (P = 0.6755). Post-hoc t-test showed
the mean relative preference was significantly larger in the congruent response trials
than in the incongruent response trials only when coherence level was 5% (P =
0.0010, Bonferroni corrected), but not at higher coherence levels (P > 0.1989). (c)
Mean relative preferences for the congruent response (red) and incongruent response
(blue) trials in the rating stage.
Figure S6. Motion direction discrimination performance in Experiment 6. Error bars
represent SEM.