Rhodes, S , Parra, M A , & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory The role of presentation time Supplementary Material Change detection task performance can be expressed as many[.]
Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation time Supplementary Material Change detection task performance can be expressed as many different measures of discriminability (or sensitivity) and analysis of different measures can affect conclusions (e.g Allen, Hitch, Mate, & Baddeley, 2012) Therefore, as well as the analysis of corrected recognition reported in the main text, we also conducted analyses on A’, d’, and proportion correct Analysis of A’ In their experiments, Brown and Brockmole (2010) reported and analysed A’, so we report this measure first Values of A’ for each of the age-groups and experimental conditions are shown in Figure S1 Figure S1 A’ across groups and experimental conditions Note Error bars represent ± standard error A conventional ANOVA analysis of A’ revealed a large main effect of memory condition, F(2, 92) = 80.24, MSE = 0.005, p < 0.0001, η2P = 0.636, with sensitivity highest in the colour condition (M = 0.96) followed by shape (M = 0.91) and then the binding condition (M = 0.83) There was also a main Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation time effect of presentation time, F(1, 46) = 8.12, MSE = 0.005, p < 0.01, η2P = 0.150, with slightly higher sensitivity following 2500ms presentation (M = 0.91) relative to 900ms (M = 0.89) Sensitivity estimates were slightly higher in younger adults (M = 0.92) than older adults (M = 0.88) but there was no significant effect of age-group, F(1, 46) = 2.51, MSE = 0.034, p = 0.12, η2P = 0.052 However, this should be approached with caution given the large effect of age-group on the bias measure, B’’ (Pastore, Crawley, Berens, & Skelly, 2003) The interactions between age-group and presentation duration [F(1, 46) = 0.73, MSE = 0.005, p = 0.40, η2P = 0.016] and between presentation time and memory condition [F(2, 92) = 0.75, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.57, η2P = 0.016] both did not reach significance The crucial interactions between age-group and memory condition [F(2, 92) = 1.88, MSE = 0.005, p = 0.16, η2P = 0.039] and the three way interaction [F(2, 92) = 0.68, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.51, η2P = 0.015] were both non-significant Quantifying the evidence against age-group interactions using default Bayes factors (Rouder, Morey, Speckman, & Province, 2012) the data are approximately 1.8 times less likely under an interaction between age-group and memory condition relative to the null (main effects) model (BF = 0.55 ± 0.86%) The evidence against the age by presentation time (BF = 0.225 ± 1.22%, 4.44 against) and the three way (BF = 0.155 ± 1.39%, 6.44 against) interactions was more substantial Analysis of d’ Sensitivity indexed by d’ across the different experimental conditions and age-groups is shown in Figure S2 An ANOVA on d’ revealed main effects of memory condition, F(2, 92) = 173.22, MSE = 0.526, p < 0.001, η2P = 0.790, with sensitivity highest in the colour condition (M = 3.63), followed by shape (M = 2.49), then binding (M = 1.69) Estimates of d’ were higher following 2500ms presentation (M = 2.75) relative to 900ms (M = 2.46), F(1, 46) = 12.44, MSE = 0.494, p < 0.01, η2P = 0.213, and were also higher for younger (M = 2.90) relative to older adults (M = 2.30), F(1, 46) = 9.59, MSE = 2.691, p < 0.01, η2P = 0.173 No interactions approached significance [age-group by presentation: F(1, 46) = 0.76, MSE = 0.494, p = 0.39, η2P = 0.016, memory condition by presentation duration: F(2, 92) = 1.03, MSE = 0.292, p = 0.36, η2P = 0.022, age-group by memory condition: F(2, Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation time 92) = 0.55, MSE = 0.526, p = 0.58, η2P = 0.012, three way interaction: F(2, 92) = 0.50, MSE = 0.292, p = 0.61, η2P = 0.011] In contrast to the analysis of corrected recognition reported in the main text and A’ above there was substantial evidence against an interaction between age-group and memory condition (BF = 0.117 ± 1.20%, 8.5 against) The evidence against the interaction between age by presentation time (BF = 0.213 ± 1.65%, 4.6 against) and the three way (BF = 0.152 ± 1.50%, 6.6 against) was of a similar magnitude to the analysis of other measures Figure S2 d’ across groups and experimental conditions Note Error bars represent ± standard error Analysis of Proportion Correct The proportion of correct responses given by each age-group across the experimental conditions is shown in Figure S3 There was a main effect of memory condition, F(2, 92) = 126.91, MSE = 0.006, p < 0.001, η2P = 0.734, with more correct responses in the colour condition (M = 0.93), followed by shape (M = 0.86), and then binding (M = 0.76) Performance was slightly lower with less time to study memory objects (900 ms: M = 0.84; 2500 ms: M = 0.86), F(1, 46) = 8.53, MSE = 0.005, p < Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation time 0.01, η2P = 0.157, and younger adults were more likely to respond correctly (M = 0.88) relative to older adults (M = 0.82), F(1, 46) = 5.87, MSE = 0.039, p < 0.02, η2P = 0.113 As in all other analyses no interactions approached significance [age-group by presentation: F(1, 46) = 0.33, MSE = 0.005, p = 0.57, η2P = 0.007, memory condition by presentation duration: F(2, 92) = 0.48, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.62, η2P = 0.01, age-group by memory condition: F(2, 92) = 1.81, MSE = 0.006, p = 0.17, η2P = 0.038, three way interaction: F(2, 92) = 0.84, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.44, η2P = 0.018] As in the analysis of corrected recognition and A’ the evidence against an interaction between age-group and memory condition was rather weak (BF = 0.502 ± 1.33%, 1.99 against) The evidence against the interaction between age-group and presentation time (BF = 0.188 ± 1.53%, 5.3 against) and the three way interaction (BF = 0.166 ± 1.45%, against) was more substantial Figure S3 Proportion correct across groups and experimental conditions Note Error bars represent ± standard error Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation time References Allen, R J., Hitch, G J., Mate, J., & Baddeley, A D (2012) Feature binding and attention in working memory: A resolution of previous contradictory findings The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(12), 2369–2383 Brown, L A., & Brockmole, J R (2010) The role of attention in binding visual features in working memory: Evidence from cognitive ageing The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 2067–2079 Pastore, R E., Crawley, E J., Berens, M S., & Skelly, M A (2003) Nonparametric A’ and other modern misconceptions about signal detection theory Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(3), 556–569 Rouder, J N., Morey, R D., Speckman, P L., & Province, J M (2012) Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356–374 .. .Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation... 92) = 1.03, MSE = 0.292, p = 0.36, η2P = 0.022, age-group by memory condition: F(2, Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation... memory objects (900 ms: M = 0.84; 2500 ms: M = 0.86), F(1, 46) = 8.53, MSE = 0.005, p < Rhodes, S., Parra, M A., & Logie, R H Aging and feature binding in visual working memory: The role of presentation