Twenty-six volunteers with normal vision participated in this experiment. Twenty-five participants were students in the University of Essex, U. K. There were 15 females and 11 males. All participants were above sixteen-year-old. One of the participants is left-handed and the others are right-handed. Participants read the information about the experiment and signed the written informed consent before the experiment.
Materials and Apparatus
A pool of 208 words were selected and divided into two sets of 104 words each. One set of words served as new words (New word set) and another set of words served as old words (Old word set) in the recognition memory test. Both sets of words were presented randomly in two different…show more content… The words were displayed on a 22-inch LCD monitor. A table with embedded monitor was used in this experiment. A touch-screen measuring approximately 740mm was on top of the monitor. Two home buttons were placed in front of the participants on the table and connected to the computer. A barrier was used to block the participants’ sight in the study phase (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Representation of the paradigm used in this experiment.
Design and Procedures
A standard recognition memory test was implemented with SIOR paradigm in this experiment. Each participant completed 52 trials. 26 participants provided 1342 trails in this experiment. Only half of 1342 trails were evaluated in the analysis. This study focused on the proportion of responses of each participant when he/she chose a different location as their partner’s previous response. The analysis compared participant’s response to the same location to their partner with the chance of 50 percent. If a significant different was shown in the hypothesis that participant’s preferences were not by chance of 50 percent, the study might conclude that participant preferred a different location compared with their partner’s previous action. The effect of SIOR was quantified as the number of responses of a participant with the choice of a different location compared with their partner. 26 participants were randomly assigned in pairs to form 13 groups. Each group was tested