highly significantp = 0.001
The “gap” effect was highly significant [ F (1, 35) = 86.45, p = 0.001]; overall both groups revealed slower reaction times in the overlap, compared to the gap task.
The “gap” effect was highly significant [ F (1, 35) = 86.45, p = 0.001]; overall both groups revealed slower reaction times in the overlap, compared to the gap task.
Saccadic direction (%correct) Saccadic direction to the gap and overlap targets revealed a marginal trend of a group effect [ F (1, 35) = 3.7, p = 0.062].