Table 1 Design table.
From: Alternating capture of attention by multiple visual working memory representations
Question | Hypothesis (if applicable) | Sampling plan (e.g. power analysis) | Analysis plan | Interpretation given to different outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
When RT and FFP serve as dependent variables, do simultaneous multiple visual working memory representations indeed capture attention? | 1. Multiple visual working memory representations simultaneously capture attention | We will recruit 24 participants through Kyushu University | A memory-capture index (MCI) was calculated to measure the interference caused by distractors. We will run a paired-samples t-test on the number of memory items (one vs. two) | 1. The sum interference of two distractors in two memory items condition is significantly larger than the interference in one memory condition |
2. Only one working memory representation can capture attention | 2. The sum interference of two distractors in two memory items condition is not significantly different from the interference in one memory condition | |||
Do participants intentionally prepare for the search task, thus affecting the results of the research? | 1. Yes | We will also recruit 24 participants through Kyushu University | We will run the same analysis as Experiment 1 | 1. In Experiment 1, we find that multiple visual working memory representations simultaneously capture attention, however, the results of Experiment 2 show that only one working memory representation can capture attention |
2. No | 2. Both experiments show that multiple visual working memory representations simultaneously capture attention |
