Appendix B — Individual differences in hysteresis and adaptation

B.1 R packages used

As indicated in the Methods section, for all our analyses we used R (Version 4.0.4; R Core Team, 2021) and the R-packages BayesFactor (Version 0.9.12.4.2; Morey & Rouder, 2018), brms (Version 2.16.1; Bürkner, 2017, 2018, 2021), coda (Version 0.19.4; Plummer et al., 2006), cowplot (Version 1.1.1; Wilke, 2020), devtools (Version 2.4.4; Wickham, Hester, et al., 2021), dplyr (Version 1.0.10; Wickham, François, et al., 2022), ellipse (Version 0.4.2; Murdoch & Chow, 2020), forcats (Version 0.5.2; Wickham, 2022a), ggforce (Version 0.3.3; Pedersen, 2021), ggimage (Version 0.3.1; Yu, 2022), ggiraph (Version 0.7.10; Gohel & Skintzos, 2021), ggplot2 (Version 3.3.6; Wickham, 2016), ggstance (Version 0.3.5; Henry et al., 2020), ggthemes (Version 4.2.4; Arnold, 2021), glue (Version 1.6.2; Hester & Bryan, 2022), here (Version 1.0.1; Müller, 2020), kableExtra (Version 1.3.4; Zhu, 2021), knitr (Version 1.39; Xie, 2015), lubridate (Version 1.8.0; Grolemund & Wickham, 2011), Matrix (Version 1.3.2; Bates & Maechler, 2021), modelr (Version 0.1.9; Wickham, 2022b), papaja (Version 0.1.1; Aust & Barth, 2022), patchwork (Version 1.1.2; Pedersen, 2022), purrr (Version 0.3.4; Henry & Wickham, 2020), Rcpp (Eddelbuettel & Balamuta, 2018; Version 1.0.9; Eddelbuettel & François, 2011), readr (Version 2.1.2; Wickham, Hester, et al., 2022), readxl (Version 1.4.1; Wickham & Bryan, 2022), rstan (Version 2.21.2; Stan Development Team, 2020a), StanHeaders (Version 2.21.0.7; Stan Development Team, 2020b), stringr (Version 1.4.0; Wickham, 2019), tibble (Version 3.1.8; Müller & Wickham, 2022), tidybayes (Version 3.0.1; Kay, 2021), tidyr (Version 1.2.1; Wickham & Girlich, 2022), tidyverse (Version 1.3.2; Wickham et al., 2019), tinylabels (Version 0.2.3; Barth, 2022), and usethis (Version 2.1.6; Wickham, Bryan, et al., 2021).

B.2 Supplementary Figures

Figure B.1: (a) Mean response to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage). The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. (b) Mean response to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage). The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown.

Figure B.2: (a) Mean individual responses to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage). The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated proximity effect are indicated in red. (b) Mean individual responses to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage). The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated hysteresis effect are indicated in blue, participants with the smallest and largest estimated adaptation effect are indicated in red.

Figure B.3: (a) Mean response to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit as used by Gepshtein & Kubovy, 2005, and Schwiedrzik et al., 2014). The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. (b) Mean response to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio Schwiedrzik et al. (2014). The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown.

Figure B.4: (a) Mean individual responses to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit as used by Gepshtein & Kubovy, 2005, and Schwiedrzik et al., 2014). The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated proximity effect are indicated in red. (b) Mean individual responses to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio Schwiedrzik et al. (2014). The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated hysteresis effect are indicated in blue, participants with the smallest and largest estimated adaptation effect are indicated in red.

Figure B.5: (a) Mean response to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. (b) Mean response to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown.

Figure B.6: Mean individual responses to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated proximity effect are indicated in green.

Figure B.7: Mean individual responses to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (logit), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated hysteresis effect are indicated in blue, participants with the smallest and largest estimated adaptation effect are indicated in red.

Figure B.8: (a) Mean response to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. (b) Mean response to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (probability), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown.

Figure B.9: Mean individual responses to the first stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the first stimulus decreases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|). The value of aspect ratio increases with increasing distance in the 0°-orientation, leading to more 90° responses. Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated proximity effect are indicated in green.

Figure B.10: Mean individual responses to the second stimulus dependent on aspect ratio (percentage), for both the first and the second session. The probability of responding 0° to the second stimulus increases with aspect ratio (|a|/|b|; i.e., adaptation effect), and increases when the first stimulus was perceived as 0° rather than 90° (i.e., hysteresis effect). Dots indicate observed values. In addition, mean posterior predictions and their 95% highest density continuous intervals are shown. Plots for participants with the smallest and largest estimated hysteresis effect are indicated in blue, participants with the smallest and largest estimated adaptation effect are indicated in red.

Figure B.11: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session. The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual are given.

Figure B.12: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 1/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.13: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 2/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.14: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 3/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.15: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 4/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.16: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 5/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.17: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 6/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.18: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 7/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.19: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 8/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.20: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 9/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

Figure B.21: Visual representation of the absolute orientation bias of an individual per block of 60 trials, corrected for implausible 90° responses, separately for the first and the second session (Part 10/10). The colored oriented line indicates the mean direction of the absolute orientation bias per individual per block. Also the numeric values for the mean direction (M) and the magnitude (L) of the absolute orientation bias and the number of included trials (N) per individual per block are given.

B.3 Supplemental videos

In the HTML version of this Appendix, you can find screen recordings of some trials for each task that was part of this study (cf. Figure B.22).

Absolute orientation bias task

Hysteresis and adaptation task

Control task

Figure B.22: Screen recordings of some trials for the absolute orientation bias, experimental, and control tasks that were part of this study.

Arnold, J. B. (2021). Ggthemes: Extra themes, scales and geoms for ’ggplot2’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggthemes

Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2022). papaja: Prepare reproducible APA journal articles with R Markdown. https://github.com/crsh/papaja

Barth, M. (2022). tinylabels: Lightweight variable labels. https://cran.r-project.org/package=tinylabels

Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2021). Matrix: Sparse and dense matrix classes and methods. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Matrix

Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01

Bürkner, P.-C. (2018). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017

Bürkner, P.-C. (2021). Bayesian item response modeling in R with brms and Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 100(5), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v100.i05

Eddelbuettel, D., & Balamuta, J. J. (2018). Extending extitR with extitC++: A Brief Introduction to extitRcpp. The American Statistician, 72(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375990

Eddelbuettel, D., & François, R. (2011). Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i08

Gepshtein, S., & Kubovy, M. (2005). Stability and change in perception: Spatial organization in temporal context. Experimental Brain Research, 160(4), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2038-3

Gohel, D., & Skintzos, P. (2021). Ggiraph: Make ’ggplot2’ graphics interactive. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggiraph

Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. (2011). Dates and times made easy with lubridate. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(3), 1–25. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i03/

Henry, L., & Wickham, H. (2020). Purrr: Functional programming tools. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr

Henry, L., Wickham, H., & Chang, W. (2020). Ggstance: Horizontal ’ggplot2’ components. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggstance

Hester, J., & Bryan, J. (2022). Glue: Interpreted string literals. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=glue

Kay, M. (2021). tidybayes: Tidy data and geoms for Bayesian models. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1308151

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of bayes factors for common designs. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor

Müller, K. (2020). Here: A simpler way to find your files. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=here

Müller, K., & Wickham, H. (2022). Tibble: Simple data frames. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tibble

Murdoch, D., & Chow, E. D. (2020). Ellipse: Functions for drawing ellipses and ellipse-like confidence regions. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ellipse

Pedersen, T. L. (2021). Ggforce: Accelerating ’ggplot2’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggforce

Pedersen, T. L. (2022). Patchwork: The composer of plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork

Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., & Vines, K. (2006). CODA: Convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6(1), 7–11. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Schwiedrzik, C. M., Ruff, C. C., Lazar, A., Leitner, F. C., Singer, W., & Melloni, L. (2014). Untangling perceptual memory: Hysteresis and adaptation map into separate cortical networks. Cerebral Cortex, 24(5), 1152–1164. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs396

Stan Development Team. (2020a). RStan: The R interface to Stan. http://mc-stan.org/

Stan Development Team. (2020b). StanHeaders: Headers for the R interface to Stan. https://mc-stan.org/

Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

Wickham, H. (2019). Stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr

Wickham, H. (2022a). Forcats: Tools for working with categorical variables (factors). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forcats

Wickham, H. (2022b). Modelr: Modelling functions that work with the pipe. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=modelr

Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2022). Readxl: Read excel files. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl

Wickham, H., Bryan, J., & Barrett, M. (2021). Usethis: Automate package and project setup. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=usethis

Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2022). Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr

Wickham, H., & Girlich, M. (2022). Tidyr: Tidy messy data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr

Wickham, H., Hester, J., & Bryan, J. (2022). Readr: Read rectangular text data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readr

Wickham, H., Hester, J., Chang, W., & Bryan, J. (2021). Devtools: Tools to make developing r packages easier. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=devtools

Wilke, C. O. (2020). Cowplot: Streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for ’ggplot2’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot

Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://yihui.org/knitr/

Yu, G. (2022). Ggimage: Use image in ’ggplot2’. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggimage

Zhu, H. (2021). kableExtra: Construct complex table with ’kable’ and pipe syntax. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=kableExtra