Tone Detection Threshold, Condition Probabilities, and ERP Results. Refer to Figures 1 & 2 for related information.
(A) Tone detection thresholds for individual participants. Each dot signifies a participant’s threshold.
(B) Condition probabilities. The left plot illustrates the cumulative probability of the target tone appearing in tone trials over time; the right plot displays the probability of a trial being a tone trial, given that no tone is presented.
(C) Behavioral results. From left to right, the plots show d-prime values, criteria, and reaction time, respectively. Line color denotes block number. Error bars indicate ±1 standard error of the mean across participants. Analysis was conducted on tone detection performance using a signal detection framework and a two-way repeated-measure ANOVA (rmANOVA) on the d-prime values with Temporal location and Block number as main factors. A significant main effect was found for Block number (F(2,34) = 5.74, p = .007, ηp2 = 0.252) with a significant linear trend indicating decreased tone detection performance with increasing block number (F(1,17) = 9.94, p = .006, ηp2 = 0.369). This effect is attributed to participants’ decreased effort or fatigue due to the repetitive trial structure in the tone detection task. Temporal location did not have a significant main effect (F(2,34) = 3.26, p = .051, ηp2 = 0.166), but a significant interaction was found between Temporal location and Block number (F(4,68) = 3.80, p = .008, ηp2 = 0.183). Further testing of Temporal location in each block (one-way rmANOVA) revealed a significant main effect in the second (F(2,34) = 4.97, p = .020, ηp2 = 0.226) and third blocks (F(2,34) = 7.01, p = .009, ηp2 = 0.292), but not in the first (F(2,34) = 2.94, p = .066, ηp2 = 0.148). False Discovery Rate (FDR) adjustment was applied to control false positive rate.
The criteria calculated for the three temporal locations shared the same no-tone trials and the differences between them were dominated by the hit rate in the tone trials. We averaged the hit rates over the three temporal locations in the tone trials and calculated a criterion for each block. No significant main effect was found in a one-way rmANOVA on criteria with Block number as the main factor (F(2,34) = 3.06, p = .056, ηp2 = 0.105). A two-way rmANOVA was conducted on the raw reaction time with Trial condition (three different temporal locations in the tone trials and one no-tone condition) and Block number as main factors. The main effect of Trial condition was significant (F(3,51) = 28.68, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.636); no significance was found for the main effect of Block number (F(2,34) = 1.65, p = .207, ηp2 = 0.089) nor for the interaction (F(6,102) = .92, p = .485, ηp2 = 0.051). The significant main effect of Trial condition suggests that early tone detection might provide participants more time to prepare for button responses.
(D) ERPs to the target tone averaged across three blocks. Channel Cz was selected for statistical analyses. Two significant temporal regions showed a main effect of Temporal location (p < 0.05): region of interest 1 (ROI 1) from 0.18 s to 0.26 s and ROI 2 from 0.35 s to 0.46 s (left plot). ERP amplitudes within each temporal region were averaged to compare ERP magnitude between temporal locations. In both ROIs, the absolute magnitude of ERPs to the target tone significantly increased with the temporal location with the ERP in the third tone location larger than the first and the second tone locations and the ERP in the second tone location larger than the first tone location (p < 0.05; adjusted FDR correction was applied).