Fig. 3 | Nature Communications

Fig. 3

From: Feature integration within discrete time windows

Fig. 3

Experiments 2 and 3. a Experiment 2. A central vernier and an anti-vernier in frame 8 (330 ms) were presented before 450 ms. A pro-vernier was presented in frame 12 (490 ms), after 450 ms. b Results of experiment 2. In condition V-AV8 [R2], observers were not able to report the direction of the flank offset, suggesting mandatory integration. In condition V-AV12 [R2], observers were able to report the direction of the flank offset, suggesting that the flank offset did not integrate with the central vernier offset. We compare dominances in conditions V-AV8-PV12 [R1] and V-AV8-PV12 [R2] to V-AV8 [R2] and 100 − (V-AV12 [R2]), respectively, to test whether the addition of the third offset changed the integration. Observers were not able to report the direction of the central vernier in condition V-AV8-PV12 [R1], whereas they could report the direction of the pro-vernier in frame 12 (V-AV8-PV12 [R2]). We suggest that integration only occurs within discrete windows of integration. Even offsets that are in close spatio-temporal proximity do not integrate if they are in different windows. These results were well replicated by the model (see Fig. 5). Crosses indicate individual data. c Results of experiment 3. The flank verniers were in the same frames as in experiment 2, but there was no central vernier. When the flank verniers in frame 8 and 12 were in opposite directions, observers were able to report the individual offsets (PV8-AV12 [R1] and PV8-AV12 [R2]). Thus, the first window of integration seems to start with stimulus onset. These results are well replicated by the model (blue circles). Error bars represent s.e.m. Source data are provided as a Source Data file

Back to article page