Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results.
<p><b>(A)</b> Participants were seated back-to-back, facing separate but identical displays. Each participant had a keyboard to provide responses. <b>(B)</b> There were 16 unique grayscale stimuli, varying on 4 dimensions: spatial frequency (thick vs. thin lines), patte...
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Altri autori: | , , , |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1849927630030110720 |
|---|---|
| author | Denise Moerel (9080849) |
| author2 | Tijl Grootswagers (9080843) Genevieve L. Quek (12303518) Sophie Smit (8129556) Manuel Varlet (306580) |
| author2_role | author author author author |
| author_facet | Denise Moerel (9080849) Tijl Grootswagers (9080843) Genevieve L. Quek (12303518) Sophie Smit (8129556) Manuel Varlet (306580) |
| author_role | author |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Denise Moerel (9080849) Tijl Grootswagers (9080843) Genevieve L. Quek (12303518) Sophie Smit (8129556) Manuel Varlet (306580) |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2025-11-25T18:21:16Z |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479.g001 |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Stimuli_experiment_procedure_and_behavioral_results_/30713157 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | Neuroscience Evolutionary Biology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified shared representations associated randomly matched pseudo interpret incoming information 45 &# 8211 200 &# 8201 180 &# 8201 neural processes underlying investigate information alignment alignment remain unknown cognitive processes early alignment upon rules successful cooperation stimulus presentation social interactions hyperscanning data extending beyond effectively captured categorization rules |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | Image Figure info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion image |
| description | <p><b>(A)</b> Participants were seated back-to-back, facing separate but identical displays. Each participant had a keyboard to provide responses. <b>(B)</b> There were 16 unique grayscale stimuli, varying on 4 dimensions: spatial frequency (thick vs. thin lines), pattern (wavy vs. straight lines), contrast (high vs. low), and general shape (circle vs. square). <b>(C)</b> The two-part categorization task. In Part 1 (top panel), participants worked together to sort the stimuli into 4 groups of 4 stimuli. To do this, they had to select two dimensions to group the stimuli, while ignoring the two other dimensions. In Part 2 (bottom panel), participants categorized stimuli into the four groups they just created: Participants saw a stimulus for 100 ms, followed by a blank screen for 900 ms. Then, a response-button mapping screen was shown for 1,000 ms, and participants could make a categorization response based on the four groups that were made in Part 1. This was followed by a feedback screen for 500 ms, providing feedback about whether the response of the two participants matched the previously agreed-upon sorting rules. The feedback pertained to the pair, not the individual. During the feedback, the fixation bullseye turned green if both individuals in the pair were correct, red if neither individual was correct, and orange if only one individual was correct. In the latter case, the feedback was not specific about which individual in the pair was correct. <b>(D)</b> The features that were used by the pairs to make the four groups. The x-axis shows the percentage of pairs that chose each feature. <b>(E)</b> The combinations of features that were used to make the four groups. Each pair of participants chose two features. The x-axis shows the percentage of pairs that chose each combination of features. <b>(F)</b> Behavioral accuracy on the categorization task over experiment blocks. The thick blue line shows the average across the 48 individuals. The shaded blue area shows the 95% confidence interval. The thin gray lines show the accuracy of individual participants. Chance is at 25% in this 4-way categorization task (dotted line). <b>(</b><b>G)</b> Response alignment between the two participants in the pair, regardless of whether the response was correct. The green line shows the average alignment across the 24 pairs. The shaded green area shows the 95% confidence interval, and the dotted line indicates chance level (25%).</p> |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| id | Manara_0b85d7e8b4e566269b1caaed91117581 |
| identifier_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479.g001 |
| network_acronym_str | Manara |
| network_name_str | ManaraRepo |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:figshare.com:article/30713157 |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | |
| repository_id_str | |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 |
| spelling | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results.Denise Moerel (9080849)Tijl Grootswagers (9080843)Genevieve L. Quek (12303518)Sophie Smit (8129556)Manuel Varlet (306580)NeuroscienceEvolutionary BiologyBiological Sciences not elsewhere classifiedshared representations associatedrandomly matched pseudointerpret incoming information45 &# 8211200 &# 8201180 &# 8201neural processes underlyinginvestigate information alignmentalignment remain unknowncognitive processesearly alignmentupon rulessuccessful cooperationstimulus presentationsocial interactionshyperscanning dataextending beyondeffectively capturedcategorization rules<p><b>(A)</b> Participants were seated back-to-back, facing separate but identical displays. Each participant had a keyboard to provide responses. <b>(B)</b> There were 16 unique grayscale stimuli, varying on 4 dimensions: spatial frequency (thick vs. thin lines), pattern (wavy vs. straight lines), contrast (high vs. low), and general shape (circle vs. square). <b>(C)</b> The two-part categorization task. In Part 1 (top panel), participants worked together to sort the stimuli into 4 groups of 4 stimuli. To do this, they had to select two dimensions to group the stimuli, while ignoring the two other dimensions. In Part 2 (bottom panel), participants categorized stimuli into the four groups they just created: Participants saw a stimulus for 100 ms, followed by a blank screen for 900 ms. Then, a response-button mapping screen was shown for 1,000 ms, and participants could make a categorization response based on the four groups that were made in Part 1. This was followed by a feedback screen for 500 ms, providing feedback about whether the response of the two participants matched the previously agreed-upon sorting rules. The feedback pertained to the pair, not the individual. During the feedback, the fixation bullseye turned green if both individuals in the pair were correct, red if neither individual was correct, and orange if only one individual was correct. In the latter case, the feedback was not specific about which individual in the pair was correct. <b>(D)</b> The features that were used by the pairs to make the four groups. The x-axis shows the percentage of pairs that chose each feature. <b>(E)</b> The combinations of features that were used to make the four groups. Each pair of participants chose two features. The x-axis shows the percentage of pairs that chose each combination of features. <b>(F)</b> Behavioral accuracy on the categorization task over experiment blocks. The thick blue line shows the average across the 48 individuals. The shaded blue area shows the 95% confidence interval. The thin gray lines show the accuracy of individual participants. Chance is at 25% in this 4-way categorization task (dotted line). <b>(</b><b>G)</b> Response alignment between the two participants in the pair, regardless of whether the response was correct. The green line shows the average alignment across the 24 pairs. The shaded green area shows the 95% confidence interval, and the dotted line indicates chance level (25%).</p>2025-11-25T18:21:16ZImageFigureinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionimage10.1371/journal.pbio.3003479.g001https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Stimuli_experiment_procedure_and_behavioral_results_/30713157CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/307131572025-11-25T18:21:16Z |
| spellingShingle | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. Denise Moerel (9080849) Neuroscience Evolutionary Biology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified shared representations associated randomly matched pseudo interpret incoming information 45 &# 8211 200 &# 8201 180 &# 8201 neural processes underlying investigate information alignment alignment remain unknown cognitive processes early alignment upon rules successful cooperation stimulus presentation social interactions hyperscanning data extending beyond effectively captured categorization rules |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| title_full | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| title_fullStr | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| title_short | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| title_sort | Stimuli, experiment procedure, and behavioral results. |
| topic | Neuroscience Evolutionary Biology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified shared representations associated randomly matched pseudo interpret incoming information 45 &# 8211 200 &# 8201 180 &# 8201 neural processes underlying investigate information alignment alignment remain unknown cognitive processes early alignment upon rules successful cooperation stimulus presentation social interactions hyperscanning data extending beyond effectively captured categorization rules |