Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeGraphical illustration of sustained vs. onset rivalry results
Posted by Potsdam_EM_Group on 27 Apr 2007 at 11:43 GMT
The graphical data-illustration method is elegant and informative, although compression artifacts in the graphical reproduction (Figure 2B) sometimes hinder perception of the results. Note also that in the case of sustained rivalry (Figure 2B, fourth column), dominance times are displayed on a continuous time scale. In contrast, in the onset-rivalry plots (first three columns), reports are given once per cycle at a given location, resulting in a clear structure (tree rings). A direct comparison of these plots may be misleading, since those of the sustained condition appear less structured (and, thus, less biased) a priori.
RE: Graphical illustration of sustained vs. onset rivalry results
OliviaCarter replied to Potsdam_EM_Group on 05 May 2007 at 02:35 GMT
Our claim was less about the structure and more about the location specific biases. The presentation of the sustained condition should allow for a visual comparison of the relative proportion of stimulus dominance. Such location specific biases are clearly obvious in the sustained presentation used in experiment 3. The issue of compression artifacts is a valid concern as the initial loops are smaller, and therefore proportionally underrepresented, in our diagrams. However, there is absolutely no evidence or suspicion of a systematic change in the proportion of bias over the course of the trial. Therefore we disagree that our method of presenting the bias is misleading. In contrary, we feel that our graphical presentation of the entire spatial and temporal pattern of perceptual dominance provides the reader with a complete understanding and intuition of our results.