Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

Examples of the stimuli.

From left to right: rough cube, rough sphere, smooth cube, smooth sphere.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 1.

A basic overview of the conditions.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Experimental set-up.

A bundle of items (one rough cubical target amongst smooth spherical distractors) hang above a resting cushion.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 2.

Results from the planned comparisons for the reaction times.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Reaction time data for all conditions.

Dark grey bars indicate target-present trials and light grey bars target-absent trials. Error bars represent standard errors.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

Reaction times for the target saliency comparisons.

A: Roughness comparison. B: Shape comparison. Reaction times are pooled over target-present and target-absent trials. Legends indicate the conditions, where each symbol pair stands for the target and the distractors in that condition as explained in Table 1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Figure 5.

Reaction times for the salient disruption comparisons.

A: Edge disruption on rough target. B: Edge disruption on smooth target. C: Roughness disruption on cube target. D: Roughness disruption on sphere target. Reaction times are pooled over target-present and target-absent trials. Legends indicate the conditions, where each symbol pair stands for the target and the distractors in that condition as explained in Table 1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

More »

Figure 5 Expand

Figure 6.

Reaction times for the integration comparisons.

A: Comparisons of smooth sphere distractors. B: Comparisons of smooth cube distractors. C: Comparisons of rough cube distractors. D: Comparisons of rough sphere distractors. Reaction times are pooled over target-present and target-absent trials. Legends indicate the conditions, where each symbol pair stands for the target and the distractors in that condition as explained in Table 1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

More »

Figure 6 Expand

Figure 7.

Reaction times for the balance comparisons.

A: Comparisons with a cue added and disruption removed. The two comparisons on the left have a shape cue added, the two on the right have a roughness cue added. B: Comparisons with a cue and a disruption added. The two comparisons of the left have a shape cue added, the two on the right have a roughness cue added. Reaction times are pooled over target-present and target-absent trials. Legends indicate the conditions, where each symbol pair stands for the target and the distractors in that condition as explained in Table 1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

More »

Figure 7 Expand

Figure 8.

The measured reaction times against the calculated reaction times of the model.

Error bars represent standard errors. The numbers next to the data points indicate the condition.

More »

Figure 8 Expand

Table 3.

The weights for each parameter in the linear regression model of Equation (1).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Percentage of errors in each condition, with target-present and target-absent trials listed separately.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 9.

Proportion of trials in which items were dropped out of the hand for all conditions.

Dark grey bars indicate target-present trials and light grey bars target-absent trials. Error bars represent standard errors.

More »

Figure 9 Expand