Table 4 Visibility differences between high 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

2.22

16

11.65, 480.13

0.04

Fear–anger

− 7.71

16

− 725.77, − 412.94

< 0.001

Fear–happy

− 5.40

16

− 766.13, − 334.60

< 0.001

Fear–disgust

− 1.95

16

− 397.50, 16.13

0.06

Control comparisons (RMS)

Fear–neutral

− 0.12

16

− 207.67, 184.51

0.90

Fear–anger

− 4.66

16

− 520.24, − 194.94

< 0.001

Fear–happy

− 0.33

16

− 251.02, 183.38

0.74

Fear–disgust

− 0.81

16

− 116.49, 51.66

0.42

Expression comparisons (apparent)

Fear–neutral

0.28

16

− 249.76, 326.35

0.78

Fear–anger

− 3.13

16

− 720.03, − 138.66

0.0060

Fear–happy

− 0.74

16

− 432.89, 207.52

0.46

Fear–disgust

− 0.22

16

− 283.04, 228.26

0.82

Control comparisons (apparent)

Fear–neutral

3.84

16

199.61, 690.45

0.001

Fear–anger

− 2.53

16

− 568.04, − 50.45

0.02

Fear–happy

− 1.25

16

− 455.39, 117.53

0.22

Fear–disgust

− 2.94

16

− 997.56, − 163.21

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