SPEAKER 0

All right, hello everyone. I hope everyone had a fantastic weekend. Uh, so we did
complete our first assessments on Friday. Hands up if everything went well for
inquisitive. And hands up if everything went well for Zaps. Amazing. OK, perfect.
Um, if you have any technical issues, unfortunately I am not the most tech savvy
person when it comes to Norton, so the Norton Tech Help would be the best people to
reach out to. But obviously if you need to keep me in the loop with anything you
can just let me know, um, and we got another set of inquisitive and zaps, uh,
coming up due this Friday, and that will be for unit 2. OK. So we're starting a new
unit today. This is unit 3 recognizing objects. So let's test your knowledge on
objects. Um, I'm gonna reveal some objects and you're gonna out loud everyone at
once tell me what it is. Ready? Thumbs up if you're ready. Amazing. OK, here we go.
Ready. Oh, Do we know what this is? We're gonna say it in unison. 123. Perfect. OK.
2nd, here we go. OK, perfect. Now everyone pick one of these objects and quickly
draw it if you have any drawing capacity. Pencil and paper is fine, iPad is fine,
touch screen on a laptop is fine. If you maybe have a sketching tool on your
laptop, that's also fine. Just try and draw one of these objects. When we are
drawing these objects, what we're doing is we're actually drawing their features,
right? We don't just kind of outline an entire umbrella all in one line unless you
are some sort of mastermind. We are probably first sketching out the handle and
then maybe the umbrella part, and then maybe the little Like cane part at the end,
right? We're, we're doing the features. Can someone describe some of the features
of a candle, of the candle that's on the screen?

SPEAKER 1
A less.

SPEAKER 0
So what's at the top? OK, so kind of a rectangle on top and then a little uh
teardrop flame. Perfect, amazing. Does anyone want to describe the features of
another object? Let's say, um, The watch The watch. What kind of features does the
watch have?

SPEAKER 1
A circle or oval thing in the middle and then it's kind of like there's like two I
guess rectangles kind of on the outside and then you, you draw like there's like a
little like circle in the middle with like lines which are like. The hands of the
clock and then there's also dashes for the time in the circle. Yeah, I mean, so in
this case the our view

SPEAKER 0
of this watch is kind of rectangle circle, rectangle in 3D. We also understand the
features of the watch is usually a um two pieces of leather. Or maybe one piece of
leather that is all connected, um, maybe not leather, maybe Velcro or maybe some
sort of other fabric. Um, we understand all of these features go together to make a
watch. If we had taken off the bracelet part of the watch, we would probably
understand it more as a very small clock. Um, what are some features that are not
kind of just lines? What about things like. Color. Um, color is a feature, uh, the
shape is what we've kind of been describing already. The texture is a feature. All
of those things are features. When we observe objects, what we are doing is
understanding what features tend to fall together to create overall kind of, uh,
amalgamations of those features. And we do this in order to make better sense of
the world around us. If we were walking around and had to process everything from
the bottom up, right? We have to like say, OK, these three lines mean that it's a
triangle, and then that means it's probably this, um, that would be really, really
complicated and take a lot of our brainpower. So our brains learn. Pretty quickly
what an object is, especially if that is an object that we tend to see a lot in our
everyday lives. Our previous knowledge is used here, OK? We use previous knowledge
to make best sense of the world and understand what we are looking at, and we do
this quite automatically. This is again to make sense of the world around us. But
there are some people who have a hard time doing this, particularly people who have
very specific types of brain damage. So let's talk about first patient DF. Patient
DF has experienced brain damage, and as a result, she has a hard time integrating
features to understand an overall object. So for example, if she looks at an apple,
she might be able to see, yes, the color red. She might be able to see some of
these curved lines. She might be able to see that it has a shiny texture, but she
has a hard time putting all of that information together and understanding that
this is an apple. So technically, she can see it. Her visual processes are intact.
She can see the color, the texture, the lines, the features, but she has a hard
time putting it all together. It kind of looks like a mismatch, uh, mis mis
mismatch. Of, um, color, texture, and lines. So for example, if we were to give her
a drawing of an apple and say, can you please copy this down? Can you draw it just
like I asked all of you to do, which you probably all succeeded in greatly. Your
artistic skills are not the best. This is what she wrote down. This is what she
drew, OK? That's what she drew. So she's not able to understand what that object is
and effectively put it together. However, when we ask her to draw an apple from
memory, as in the type of, you know, what, what would you expect to see an apple
based on what you understand it stood it to be before your brain damage occurred,
and she was able to draw that apple effectively. And that is because she, well, her
drawing, her drawing skills are intact, right? Just because she's having an issue
with copying this model does not mean that she cannot draw. The drawing is actually
fine. And she can understand what an apple is conceptually based on. Her memories
of an apple before her, uh, before her accident or before her brain damage. But
right now, she cannot, she cannot integrate all of those features together in order
to understand and visualize what she is seeing. So this is not due to a lack of
artistic skills, not due to a lack of drawing ability, and not due to a lack of
seeing. She can see, but she cannot put all those features together. What is also
interesting about Patient DF is that if you were to show her an object and say, OK,
can you estimate how big that object is? So, for example, if I were to show her my
phone, I would say, can you please estimate with your fingers how wide the phone
is? Now, a healthy patient, healthy person would probably say, you know, it's about
that wide and maybe like that tall, right? We're able to get that. With DF, with
patient DF, she cannot do that. OK? That's again, because she's not able to
effectively integrate all of that information together, and that includes size,
right? She can see the lines, she can see the color, she can see the texture, but
she doesn't understand how they all fit together. But what is super interesting
here is that although she has a really hard time estimating the size with her
fingers, when she is actually asked to pick something up, when I say, can you
please pick up my phone, she actually does grip it in the correct way, right?
Patient DF is able to, although not consciously able to predict how big. Something
is when she is asked to engage in a simple action of grasping something, she has no
trouble with it. She does not overestimate the size. She does not underestimate the
size. She does not, um, misunderstand the shape. So if she's asking to cut
something round, she will grip it in a way that she understands that it is round.
So, it's not actually about a misunderstanding when it comes to action, it really
is a misunderstanding when it comes to conscious, um, hypothesis testing when it
comes to size. Something else interesting, another study that they ran with Patient
DF is looking at orientation. So, orientation is another feature. An apple, for
example, is gonna be kind of looking the same all the way around, no matter how you
put it, as long as it's on its bottom. But if you were to put an apple on its side,
that is the understanding of orientation. So, when we are estimating orientation,
that is what we're referring to when we look at this matching condition. So in this
condition, what they're really asked to do is just to say, OK, try and match where
you think this rectangle is going to be put into the slot. So you can see in this
particular example, the slot is kind of on a diagonal, and the person is
estimating, OK, what angle should I be putting this rectangle in the slot. When we
look at patient DF, we see that she has a really hard time doing this. When we look
at controls, they're very good. Controls, healthy people, everyday people you'd see
on the street, this is what their performance is. They're able to estimate exactly
where. In space, they should be putting this rectangle into the slot. Important
here though, is that they're not actually putting it in. They're just estimating,
OK? So we're no longer, we're not, we're not engaging in an action. We're just
consciously being aware of maybe which orientation we should be using. But patient
DF has a really hard time. Essentially, she's just guessing. She's really just
guessing where, uh, what orientation she believes the rectangle should be going
into the slot. Now, this is the matching condition where we're just asking them to
guess, OK? OK, where, what orientation do you think would be the most appropriate?
In this condition, we are actually asking them to put it in. So what they really
are using here is like a um kind of a fake or a controlled way of looking at
posting a letter. So if you would have to post a letter, put a letter through a
mail slot, what would you do, right? So, posting as in putting a letter in a mail
slot. In this condition, the participants, as well as patient DF are asked to
simply put it in, OK? It's not estimating, it's just engaging in the action. We can
see again with the controls that they're doing quite well. They don't need a lot of
adjustment when it comes to understanding, um, where in space they need to post the
letter and actually doing it. And patient DF amazingly, actually is doing fine.
She, again, can engage in the action and understand the orientation. But not
consciously, right? When she's asked to engage in the action, she's able to do that
quite automatically, um, she's able to engage in that action effectively, but
consciously, she's unable to engage in this estimation. Now, why is this happening?
Well, there are a few different, um, kind of hypotheses about this. But really, the
crux of it here is that DF's problems are with understanding objects, features, and
orientation. And that's not the same thing as being effectively able to move
through the world and understand space and engage in spatial processing when it
comes to actions. And in fact, a lot of people have started to argue for this
understanding that there are actually two streams of thought that come about quite
automatically and in parallel, um, when kind of emerging, uh, emerging from the
occipital lobe. So, essentially, When we receive visual information, we send that
information on 2 different routes or 2 different streams. One of them is called the
ventral stream, and this is the vision for perception. So we are on this stream are
understanding what an object looks like we're able to describe it. We're able to
put all those features together and understand it as a whole. We're able to, um,
estimate size. We're able to estimate orientation. OK? So this is the vision for
perception stream. On the other hand, we've got the dorsal stream, and this is
happening in parallel, OK, this is happening in parallel, but very different parts
of the brain, right? Very different parts of the brain. And this is called the
vision for action stream, where we are sending visual information up into the
parietal lobe, and this is our understanding of objects around us in space and
understanding how we should be engaging in action. So, based on DF's struggles, do
we think that she has problems in the ventral stream or problems in the dorsal
stream? Hands up if you think dorsal, hands up if you think ventral, amazing. Yes.
So patient DF appears to have absolutely no problems when it comes to the dorsal
stream. And remember, she can see, right? She can see,
so her vision is intact. No problems with the dorsal stream. She's able to engage
in that vision for action side of things. However, her vision for perception has
some issues. So, in fact, when we look at Yeah. When we look at the location of the
lateral occipital complex, which is that spot where we are integrating the elements
of objects, this is what we see, and this is where it is. It is on the edge of the
occipital lobe. It is technically in the occipital. But it is closer to the
temporal lobe rather than the parietal lobe. And when we look at the lesions or the
brain damage in patient DF, we see that it is almost exactly in the same place, OK,
almost in the exact same place as the lateral occipital complex. In general, if a
person has damage to the lateral occipital complex, or for any other reason, they
have a really hard time integrating elements of an object, This is called uh
apperceptive agnosia, OK? Agnosia in general is a word used to describe not being
able to recognize things in some way, but this is a very particular type of
agnosia. This is called apperceptive. agnosia, and this agnosia involves inability
to integrate elements of an object, inability to integrate color and form, shape
and orientation and texture, and put them all together to consciously understand
them. Doesn't necessarily impact vision for action, doesn't necessarily impact our
ability to reach for that object, but it does impact our ability to estimate lots
of things about that object. And you will also notice that patient DF has bilateral
damage, OK, on both sides, she has that damage. So that is apperceptive agnosia.
That is just one type of agnosia, one type of a condition that can impact our
ability to recognize objects. Again, studying people who have issues with these
types of things can help us. Really understand how healthy people and typical
people function, right? It helps us to identify areas that are really important for
integrating elements and also understanding that doesn't necessarily impact our
actions or our vision for action. It only impacts our perception. All right, let's
talk about another type of agnosia, uh, associative agnosia. So again, this type of
agnosia, the person has intact perceptual abilities, however, they do have trouble,
um, associating. Perceived objects with its meaning or its name. So, if we were to
show them the objects, they would be able to see it effectively. They'd be able to
see the color and the line, and they would be able to integrate it all well, but
unlike a person with apperceptive agnosia, they'd be able to integrate all that
information. However, they would have a hard time understanding what it was, what
it was meant for, or perhaps the word for it, depending on the patient. So in this
case, we actually see that they are effectively able to copy down the drawing,
unlike patient DS. So with this associated adventure we see that if we give them a
drawing of a tea bag or a ring or a A pen, they are able to effectively copy all
those features down and draw them well, OK. However, when we actually ask them, OK,
what is this object? What is it meant for? What, what, what do you call it, they
have a hard time saying it. Um, I think your textbook gives an example of someone
who has associative agnosia, who was asked to describe a glove. So they look at the
glove and they say, you know, and, and we say, what, what is it? Like, what is that
thing that you're looking at? And they say, well, it's a container, and it is a
continuous surface. That creates a container. It has 5 different out pouchings, um,
so they're able to describe the features of the object. They're able to say, you
know, it contains something. It's got 5 different parts to it that kind of come
out. It's one continuous surface, one piece of cloth. But they're not able to say
that it's a glove, OK? They're not able to say it, they're not able to recognize
it, and they're not, uh, um, really able to identify that it would be a good
container for a hand, or rather than something else. And they're able to say it's a
container, but we, they might not be able to say, you know, this is meant for a
hand. Um, so this type of agnosia was very famously covered by a guy named Oliver
Sacks, who writes a whole bunch of different books. Um, you can definitely read his
books. They are meant for everyone, they are not super technical, and he describes
these types of kind of special agnosia and special conditions as a result of brain
damage, and he wrote about a particular patient who mistook his wife for a hat. Um,
that's the name of the book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. He has a whole
bunch of different books, but that's probably his most famous and well-known book.
Um, so in this, he said he took hold of his wife's head, he tried to lift it off
and put it on. OK, so he thought that his wife's head was a hat, right? He tried to
put on his wife's head. Um, so, he is looking at his wife's head. It's an object,
he's able to see it, right? He's able to see it. He's probably able to describe the
features, but he is misunderstanding what it is, what it is meant for. He's not
able to describe it as a face or a head. He is thinking, OK, this must be something
I'm supposed to put on. And you see, it's in the same realm, right? It is
associated, a hat is associated with a head. Um, so he understands the basic idea,
but he has a hard time understanding the meaning or the purpose of the object. He
also um has a hard time distinguishing between a foot and a shoe. So, uh, in the
book, Oliver Sacks says, can I help you with your shoe? And then he says, ah, I
thought that was my foot. Um, so he's looking at his shoe and he thinks it's, it's
his foot. OK. And then finally, um, Oliver Sacks says he came in a little bowed and
distracted, advanced toward the grandfather clock, and essentially he was trying to
shake the hand of the grandfather clock when Oliver Sacks was standing right next
to him. So he was misunderstanding the difference between the grandfather cock and
a person. OK. So he is misunderstanding that difference. Grandfather Cox is about
the same size as a person. He understands that there's a person in the room, but he
is misunderstanding which object is which and which it is meant for. Any questions
here? All right, cool. OK. Let's move on. Let's talk about features and objects and
how we're able to understand them. So, what, what is behind the tree? On the count
of 3, we're all gonna say it. 123. Good job. Good job. OK, how do we know that it's
a cat? OK, so it is got ears, it's got fur, it's got whiskers, it's small. If it
had been big, do we think we would have a hard time knowing it was a cat? Yeah.
Hands up if we think if it was bigger, that we'd have a hard time knowing it was a
cat. Interesting. Um, yeah, usually when we can see features, we don't, it doesn't
really matter what is big or small, um, size actually shouldn't matter. Um, so,
generally when we look at a cat, we're looking for specific features. We are
looking for usually 4 legs, usually a tail, usually a body. Cats don't really float
in midair in their heads. I'm looking for things like whiskers, ears, fur. We can't
see a whole lot of those features right now, and yet we still understand it to be a
cat. What about this? What does this say on the count of 1 to 3 count of 3123. New
York. Um, do all of these words new and all of these words your, do they all look
the same? Hands up if you think they don't look exactly the same. Great. Um, yeah,
they're in different fonts, but we still understand that word regardless of what
font it is in to say New York. In all, with both of these examples, we're able to
detect and recognize variations in stimulus input. We don't need everything to
always look the same for us to understand that it's the same object. A lot of you
have laptops out, not all of them look the same. They're not all the same color,
they're not all the same size, they're not all the same shape even. And yet I
understand that to be a laptop. We understand variations in stimulus input. We
don't need everything to always follow the exact same rules in order for us to
understand the um the meaning of the object. The biggest thing that we're going to
use when recognizing objects is context. So for example, I understand that if you
have a device out in front of you, it's probably a laptop or an iPad because that
makes sense within this context. You're using it to take notes or maybe scroll on a
shopping website or something. Um, OK, so we are using context to recognize
objects. In this example, what, what does this say? On a count of 1 to 3123. Say it
again. The cat, good. The cat. Now, technically this letter here and this letter
here look exactly the same, right? They are exactly the same, but do they mean the
same thing in both words? In this word, it's supposed to represent an age, and in
that word, it's supposed to represent an A. It's the same shape, it's the same
object, it's the same orientation, it's the same font, it's the same lines, and yet
we still understand that it's supposed to mean something different depending on the
context, right? So it is context dependent, our ability to recognize objects. Here,
it's supposed to represent an H, there it's supposed to represent an A, and yet it
is still the same thing. We are understanding it with context. This is an important
consideration to make, that sometimes we are using context to understand this
object is or isn't, and sometimes we're using more of a data-driven approach. So if
we were to use a data-driven approach, this would be referred to as bottom-up
processing. This is when we process something that is directly shaped by the
stimulus. Um, so for example, you might use this if you had never seen that object
before. You'd probably look very closely at the color, the features, uh, sorry, the
color, the shape, the orientation, the texture, and you'd probably examine it
quite closely in order to fully understand what that object was. Another good
example here would be, even if you understand what the object technically is, you
might not understand what it does. So if you were in the cockpit of a plane and you
were looking at the controls, you probably would need to use bottom-up processing
in order to understand what each thing does, right? We don't have, well, unless
anyone is a pilot here, which maybe you are, um, A lot of us who are not pilots are
not gonna have that quick recognition of, OK, this is what this does, this is what
this does, this is what this does in the cockpit of a plane. So with bottom-up
processing, we have no preconceived notion. Usually, we have never seen it before,
or at least maybe we've seen it before, but we don't understand what it does or
what it's meant for, and we can't make immediate sense of it. In general, bottom-up
processing on our every in our everyday lives is not gonna happen too much unless
we are actively learning about something new or come across something very new. We
are more commonly going to use uh top-up processing or, um, so this is when we are
going to use more of a concept-driven approach, where we are using background
knowledge to influence our perception, OK? So we are processing what we're seeing
based on previous knowledge and expectations. OK, so, in this case, we are seeing
that she sees shapes. OK, I understand that to be a shape, um, this is what it is.
In this case, never seen this shape before, um, never seen this formation before,
what are we looking at? So when we were looking at the cat. This cat here, were we
using bottom up processing or top down processing. On a count of 123123. Good. Yes,
because we are using context. We know what a cat looks like. We are using this
concept-driven approach. Now, even though we do use a top-down processing, we are
still processing features individually. So for example, when we are looking at
these lines, we understand this to be a vertical line and not to be a horizontal
line. When we put them together, what is this? You have to describe this, what is
it? An L or. A right angle perfect. An L or a right angle. And when we put two of
these together, what do we see? Square, perfect. Now we are putting together all of
these features, right? It started with two lines that were not connected. Then we
have a right angle. We know that when two right angles are put together, that is a
square. When we add more lines, what is this? Yes, this is a house. So, what we're
doing is engaging in feature analysis. We are still, even though we are
understanding very quickly that it is a house based on the shape and our
understanding of what a house looks like, we still need to understand the
orientation and length and whatever it is of these features in order to fully
understand that it is, that it is a house. OK, how hard is it to find the vertical
line in this search? Does it take like 1 minute to do? Does it take a second to do,
less than 1 2nd? Hands up if you think it took less than 1 2nd for you to find the
vertical line. Yeah, this one is easy. Now I'm going to ask you to find the green
line. Do we think it's as easy? Hands up if you think it's as easy as the first
one, yeah, it's still pretty easy. This is because we're looking for one feature
difference. Now, let's look at this one. Find the vertical red line. Which of these
three do we think is the hardest to do? The last one. Perfect. The last one, we're
looking for two different features and not just one. Usually when we're asked to
look for one feature at a time, it's relatively easy. This one and the and the
number 3, find the vertical red line, we're actually asked to find two features,
the fact that it's red and the fact that it is vertical. So, combinations of
features are harder to detect, OK? Features on their own are processed first. This
gives us some evidence to suggest that features on their own are processed first.
It's not just an understanding, OK, this is what it looks like. Yes, to some degree
it is, but features on their own are processed first. They're easier to detect than
what features are together. OK. This one is pretty easy, right? Find the O, find
the L, which one is harder? Which one is harder of these two, find the O or find
the L? The L. Why is it harder to find the hell do you think? It has more of the
same features as a T. So when we're searching for something in a sea of Ts, we're
still looking for vertical lines and horizontal lines. Whereas here, what are we
looking for with the O? Is it a vertical line or a horizontal line? No, it is
round, it's the curve. So when we are looking for a feature, it is easier to do so
when it stands out in some way. Finding the letter O here is going to be a lot
easier than finding the letter L here. In general, it's always going to be harder
the more um the more stimuli we have to search through. In general, our attention
tends to favor highly salient features. So, in this case, the highly salient
feature was the fact that we're looking for a curve rather than a vertical or a
horizontal line. The highly salient. Feature is the O, OK? So, highly salient
features doesn't have to be round versus straight though. It could be a bright
color, it could be movement. It's easier to detect movement, um, than something
that is standing still. Something that is very high contrast, and faces. Faces are
really easy to detect because to us, they are highly salient, OK? To us, they are
highly salient. We are automatically, as humans, drawn to faces. It is a very
automatic process that happens very early in development, very, really quite
innate. This brings us to the feature integration theory, which suggests that basic
visual features are processed in parallel and automatically, and focused attention
is needed to bind features together for for coherent object perception, OK? So, in
general, we view one feature at a time. We need to see the feature first, and then
we're able to combine it like we saw on the previous slide. And we need to focus
attention in order to bind features together for coherent, coherent object
perception. Only basic visual features are processed automatically. We need to have
a little bit of conscious awareness, we need to have a little bit of uh focused
attention in order to create that integration. OK, so here's another example. On
the left we have what's referred to as like a feature search. In this case, we are
looking for the blue circle. Um, what is the salient feature in this case, in, in
this, on this side. Yeah, color. So in this case, we only have to focus on one
feature, and on, in that case, if we're looking for the blue circle, we have to
focus on Two features. We have to focus on color and we have to focus on shape, OK?
So, in the first one, we're only looking for the blue, and the second one, we are
looking for a blue circle. In this case, if we were to look at, OK, so we know that
one of them is easier than the other. If we were to give this to participants, each
of these, what would be the independent variable? What would be the independent
variable if we were to give both of these two participants and say, look and and
find the find the shape? What would be the dependent variable? What would be the
outcome we were interested in? How quickly they found it, so reaction time, how
quickly they find it. So then what would be the independent variable? What are we
manipulating or changing?

SPEAKER 1
teachers.

SPEAKER 0
Number of features could be an independent variable. In this case, we have the same
number of features across both.

SPEAKER 1
That in the middle. And Yeah, OK.

SPEAKER 0
I think you guys are going beyond what I'm, you guys are way, way, way, way ahead
of me. So, simply, if we were to just give these two to participants, the
independent variable is feature versus conjunction. Feature being we're only
looking for one feature, conjunction being that we're that we're looking for two
features together, conjunction search. The dependent variable would be reaction
time. How quickly are you able to find it? Um, this has 64 distractors, and that
has 64 distractors. You could also do it with different numbers of distractors, you
could do it with 16 or 4, or whatever you wanted to do. In a group of 2 to 4
people, people around you, I'm gonna have you sketch out a very simple graph for
what you would expect to see with just this, uh, set up, just that as the
independent variable and reaction time as the dependent variable. So sketch out
what that bar graph would look like.

SPEAKER 1
That was.

SPEAKER 0
OK. So what would we put on the horizontal axis?

SPEAKER 1
you.

SPEAKER 0
OK, so we'd have two bars, one for feature, one conjunction, and we would label
feature in conjunction on the horizontal axis. OK. What would we have on the Y
axis? Reaction time and yeah, well, you can do seconds or you could do
milliseconds. Good. And which bar do we expect to be bigger? Sorry? Conjunction,
good. So we might expect it to look a little like this. We've got the independent
variable on the X axis, we've got reaction time on the Y axis, and we might see
that conjunction is a little bit higher. Do we know for sure based on this graph
alone that conjunction is actually higher than feature? Hands up if you think that
you know for sure, hands up if you don't know for sure. I don't see very many hints
for either, but OK. Uh, what do we need? What do we need to, what would we need to
add to in order to understand whether one bar is actually higher than the other?
Error bars, error bars that depict standard error. Remember we talked about this at
the very beginning of the semester, error bars. So if the error bars were If this
error bar kind of went up to 1500 and this error bar came down to like 1700, would
we think that those are actually that's actually a true difference between feature
and construction? Hands up if you think yes. Yes, that would be a true difference
because the error bars would not be vertically overlapping. OK, what if we added
another independent variable? So in this case we are only depicting when we have 64
distractors, and we could do another independent variable and look at how, how many
distractors, 64 versus 16. I'm gonna have you go back to your group and re-sketch a
graph of what you would expect to see if we added a second independent variable.
All right. So, if the first independent variable is on the X axis and the dependent
variable is on the Y axis, where are we going to put the second independent
variable? What does our sketch look like? Yeah. A different color, OK, and we would
label it where. A legend, perfect. So, whenever we are adding a second independent
variable, it's important to consider all combinations of independent variables,
right? So we don't just want to add a third bar, we'd wanna add actually a second
bar to each of these, one for feature and one for conjunction, so it would look a
little bit like. This, right? So, we would probably want to add a legend and then
different colors to depict that second independent variable, and we wanna make sure
that we're looking at all of the different combinations. So here we've got feature
for 64 distractors and 16 distractors. We've also got conjunction for 64
distractors and 16 distractors. Based on the error bars here, how would we
interpret this graph? What is the main finding here based on the error bars?

SPEAKER 1
It's not a significant difference in the reaction time between the number of
distractors, but for the conjecture search, there's a significant difference in how
long it is fine to whatever it is we practice.

SPEAKER 0
Perfect, perfect, perfect. OK, so this bar is obviously much higher than the rest,
and based on the, uh, the error bars that we have, we know that it is significantly
different than these two, as well as this one. OK, I will see you all tomorrow.
Have a great day. OK.