Table 3 Visibility differences between midrange frequency expressions normalised for contrast.

From: Suppression durations for facial expressions under breaking continuous flash suppression: effects of faces’ low-level image properties

 

t

df

CI

p

Expression comparisons (RMS)

Fear–neutral

− 0.003

16

− 198.17, 197.68

0.99

Fear–anger

− 3.29

16

− 1259.86, − 273.95

0.005

Fear–happy

0.93

16

− 94.84, 244.35

0.36

Fear–disgust

− 0.14

16

− 307.50, 268.65

0.88

Control comparisons (RMS)

Fear–neutral

2.57

16

30.11, 308.49

0.02

Fear–anger

− 2.21

16

− 567.99, − 12.89

0.04

Fear–happy

2.12

16

.52, 596.90

0.05

Fear–disgust

0.33

16

− 162.68, 222.97

0.74

Expression comparisons (apparent)

Fear–neutral

0.48

16

− 277.19, 442.14

0.63

Fear–anger

− 2.79

16

− 796.04, − 109.47

0.01

Fear–happy

2.90

16

107.34, 690.07

0.01

Fear–disgust

− 0.07

16

− 410.74, 383.78

0.94

Control comparisons (apparent)

Fear–neutral

2.96

16

157.16, 943.08

0.01

Fear–anger

0.79

16

− 243.47, 536.11

0.43

Fear–happy

4.61

16

476.03, 1284.62

< 0.001

Fear–disgust

2.68

16

101.94, 872.93

0.01

  1. Pairwise comparisons conducted separately for faces normalised for RMS contrast and those normalised for apparent, perceived contrast. In each contrast condition, eight comparisons compared response times between upright fear and counterpart expressions (4) and again for control versions of faces (4). All comparisons were Šidák-corrected according to eight comparisons: α = 0.0063.
Back to article page