Page 92 - Demo

Chapter 490.91). However, people responded slightly faster when the stimulus presented was attractive than unattractive (median difference = 4.84 [2.35], 89% CI [1.13, 8.56], pd = .98). Regarding congruent trials, we found no substantial difference in RT between attractive and intermediate (median difference = −.61 [2.26], 89% CI [−4.29, 3.06], pd = .60), unattractive and intermediate (median difference = −1.25 [2.38], 89% CI [−5.04, 2.45], pd = .70), or attractive and unattractive stimuli (median difference = .67 [2.36], 89% CI [−3.11, 4.37], pd = .61).Table 3. Model Output for the Simple Model of Experiment 3. Note: all categorical independent variables were sum-to-zero coded. Parameter Median estimateSD 89% CIlower bound89% CIupper boundIntercept 0.16 1.42 -2.06 2.48Attractiveness Category [attractive] -1.09 0.95 -2.58 0.46Attractiveness Category [intermediate] 0.06 0.95 -1.48 1.57Gaze Congruency [incongruent] 16.08 0.67 15.00 17.16Attractiveness Category [attractive]: Gaze Congruency [incongruent]-1.10 0.95 -2.59 0.44Attractiveness Category [intermediate]: Gaze Congruency [incongruent]-0.58 0.95 -2.07 0.96Random effectssd [intercept] Trial order 9.63 1.18 7.90 11.67sd [intercept] Subject 0.47 0.42 0.05 1.33Nobs = 8425Nsubj = 150Age and SexWe investigated whether adding either age or sex to the model improved the predictive accuracy relative to the simple model. When comparing the model that included the three-way interaction between age, attractiveness category, and gaze congruency to the simple model, we found that the predictive accuracy of the simple model was slightly better (ΔelpdLOO = 4.6 [1.8]). The results were similar for the model that included the three-way interaction between sex, attractiveness category, and gaze congruency: The simple model performed slightly better than the complex model (ΔelpdLOO = 3.5 [2.2]). Altogether, these findings suggest that adding age or sex to the simple model did not increase the simple model’s predictive accuracy. Tom Roth.indd 90 08-01-2024 10:41