Page 34 - Demo

32Chapter 2Figure 2. Validation of the stimuli of Experiment 1. Probability of receiving high attractiveness ratings was higher for stimuli categorized as “attractive” (A). This is also depicted in (B), which treats the ratings as acontinuous variable for visualization purposes.Figure 2. Validation of the stimuli of Experiment 1. Probability of receiving high attractiveness ratings was higher for stimuli categorized as “attractive” (A). This is also depicted in (B), which treats the ratings as acontinuous variable for visualization purposes.Figure 3. By-subject mean-centered RTs per Condition and Probe Lo-cation.Dots indicate the median reaction times (RT), while error bars represent the89% Credible Interval. In the attractive conditions, partici-pants reacted fasterwhen the probe appeared behind the attractive face. The opposite pattern wasfound for unattractive faces. This suggests that specifically attractive facesmodulate initial attention.Age and SexWe investigated whether adding either Age or Sex to the model did improvethe predictive accuracy relative to the simple model. When comparing themodel that included the 3-way interaction between Age, Condition, andProbe Location to the simple model, we found that the predictive accuracyof the simple model was slightly better (∆elpdLOO = 3.5 [0.9]). For themodel that included the 3-way interaction between Sex, Condition, andProbe Location, on the other hand, we found that it performed slightlybetter than the simple model. However, the difference w as s mall a nd thestandard error of the difference was relatively large ( ∆ elpdLOO = 3.7 [3.6]).Altogether, this suggests that adding Age or Sex to the simple model didnot substantially increase the predictive accuracy.Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 32 08-04-2024 16:35