Ar to 200 or 800 msec by depressing the left or correct important
Ar to 200 or 800 msec by depressing the left or suitable key (respectively). Latencies to emit these responses are presented in Fig 2C (for responses to the “short” key) and Fig 2D (for responses towards the “long” BMS-582949 (hydrochloride) web essential). With stimulus durations of 640 or 800 msec subjects had quick latencies to correctly categorize them as “long” (proper panels); with durations of 200 to 320 msec subjects also had quick latencies to categorize them as “short”. When subjects confronted difficult decisions (i.e. once they produced a decision for any 400 msec stimulus, or created a error (choosing “short” when the stimuli duration was higher than 400 msec, or “long” when it was significantly less than 400 msec)) latencies tended to become longer. Nevertheless, as inside the preceding case, the incidence of collection of “short” decreased as the stimulus duration enhanced (or vice versa inside the case of “long”), precluding statistical comparisons for intermediate durations. Thus, in this and subsequent comparisons, we compared only the appropriate extremes in the distributions wherePLOS 1 DOI:0.37journal.pone.058508 July 28,7 Attentional Mechanisms in a Subsecond Timing Taskthere have been data from all subjects for the repeated measures ANOVA. Twoway ANOVA (group x stimulus duration, with repeated measures on the latter issue) indicated significant differences between latencies for the two stimulus durations (F(,42) 25.449, p0.00), but no important impact of group (F(two,42) 2.97, p 0.065) and no substantial interaction (F (two,42) 0.864, p 0.429). Post hoc Bonferroni’s test confirmed that the latency following an 800 msec stimulus was substantially shorter than following a 200 msec stimulus for all groups (PRPH, p 0.00; CNTR, p 0.027, Each, p 0.08).Fixation duration on each Area PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22641180 of Interest (AoI) during stimulus presentationThe cumulative duration of all fixations at every single AoI revealed a clear distinction in between the two groups: the CNTR group cumulated fixation time by remaining at the central AoI, even though the PRPH group cumulated fixation time at every AoI. The fixation time in the Each group was intermediate in the central AoI; around the occasion when these subjects gazed towards peripheral AoIs their cumulated fixation time tended to be similar to that in the PRPH group. Considering that the subjects could direct their gaze in the AoIs on several occasions for the duration of the stimulus presentation, we analyzed the average duration of each and every fixation. Fig 3 shows mean duration with the initially four fixations (F to F4) towards the central AoI and of 2 fixations (F, F2) to the peripheral AoIs. Differences are readily visible: whilst the CNTR group made as much as 4 fixations around the central AoI but seldom fixated on peripheral AoIs, the PRPH and Both groups created no much more than 3 fixations on the central AoI but made as much as 2 fixations on every single peripheral AoI. Furthermore, the duration in the first fixation around the central AoI was longer within the CNTR than in the PRPH group. Within the PRPH and Each groups the durations of fixations (when made) were similar for centrally directed and 
peripherally directed fixations, and didn’t differ in between the initial, second and third fixation. Additionally, in the PRPH and Each groups, growing the stimulus duration developed only a slight increment in fixation duration, whereas in the CNTR group fixation time was positively associated to stimulus duration, in some instances exceeding the stimulus duration, suggesting that these subjects held their fixation on the central AoI not only for the duration on the stimulus but until th.