Dependence of RTs on stimulus layout and position.
For each participant/model, we calculated the mean RT in each stimulus feature bin, then subtracted the average of these mean RTs from each bin. The panels show the average of these centered RTs across all participants with significant modulation of RT for that particular stimulus feature. For all panels, we conducted a one-way ANOVA for both models/participants and report Bonferroni-adjusted p-values, corrected for 3 comparisons (n = 75 models). We also report results from post-hoc comparisons between select feature bins conducted with Tukey’s HSD. Error bars correspond to bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. A) RT vs. stimulus layout (models: F (6, 53) = 7.43, p < 1e-6, RTs for the vertical line layout were significantly faster (Tukey’s HSD adjusted p-value < 0.05) than RTs from all other layouts except ‘>‘; participants: F (6, 53) = 23.1, p < 1e-22; RTs for the vertical line layout were significantly faster than RTs from all other layouts). B) RT vs. horizontal stimulus position (negative values: left of center; models: F (7, 64) = 16.8, p < 1e-18, RTs for the leftmost and rightmost position bins were significantly slower than RTs from all intermediate position bins; participants: F (7, 64) = 72.6, p < 1e-73; RTs for the leftmost and rightmost position bins were significantly slower than RTs from all intermediate position bins). C) RT vs. vertical stimulus position (negative values: above center; models: F (5, 66) = 17.2, p < 1e-14, RTs for the topmost and bottommost position bins were significantly slower than RTs from the two centermost position bins; participants: F(5, 66) = 113.3, p < 1e-74; RTs for the topmost and bottommost position bins were significantly slower than RTs from the two centermost position bins).