III. RESULTS:
Means of reaction times were calculated by considering only the
true responses and values between 100 and 2000 ms. Statistical analysis was
carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20)
with a significance threshold p <0.05. The extreme data were removed
following the use of the Mahalanobis distance: any data greater than 3 were
suppressed
Orientation effect:
for the correct response rates. The normality of the data was
checked before practicing the repeated measure Anova with the Kolmogorov
Smirnov test. The Bonferroni fit was used. If the normality of the data or the
homogeneity of the variables were not appropriate, the Wilcoxon test was used.
To analyze participants' sleep quality and correct response rates, the
Mann-Whitney U test was used. As for the parasite variables, age correlates
significantly and negatively with the correct average response rate for natural
images and for unknowns, and the correct response rate for standardized images
of inverted friends not matched (p <0.05).
For the genus, a significant difference in mean between men
and women is observed over the average reaction times for the natural images of
unknowns presented at the matching location. t (20,4.54) = 2.330 ; p = 0.030
with a higher average for men.
RT
Degree of familiarity :
For the ambient images : In normal and
matching conditions, a significant difference in the mean reaction time
according to the degree of familiarity is observed F (2.42) = 11.298; P =
0.000; R = 0.663. More precisely, the participants recognize their face more
quickly than those of the unknown (p = 0.000) and the faces of friends more
quickly than those of the unknown (p = 0.000).
In normal and uncorrelated conditions, no significant
differences were observed despite familiarity F (2.42) = 0.938; P = 0.399.
For the standardized images : In normal and
matching conditions, significant differences are observed according to the
degree of familiarity F (2.42) = 7.082; P = 0.002; R = 0.252. More precisely,
one recognizes his own face significantly more quickly than those of the
unknown (p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed between his own
face and that of the friend and the face of the friend from that of the unknown
(p> 0.05)
Under normal and uncorrelated conditions, no significant
difference was observed between average reaction times according to the
different faces perceived F (2,42) = 2,400; P = 0.103.
For the ambient images : In the
inverted and matching condition, there is a familiarity effect F (1.438,
30.204) = 10.849; P = 0.001; R = 0.341: participants recognize their faces
significantly faster than unknowns (p = 0.002) and faster the faces of friends
than the faces of unknowns (p = 0.015). No difference between his own face and
the faces of friends (p> 0.05).
In the inverted and non-matching condition, no significant
difference in average reaction time was observed between his own face, the
faces of the friend and the unknowns F (1,423,29,889) = 0.527; P = 0.536.
Between the normal VS inverted match condition, participants
show no significant difference in mean reaction time either for his own face,
the faces of the friend or strangers (p> 0.05).
Between the normal condition VS inverted non-matching, the
participants show no significant difference in average reaction time either for
his own face, the faces of the friend or unknown F (5,105) = 0.905; p =
0.481.
For the standardized images : In a matching
and inverted condition, there is a familiarity effect F (2.42) = 11.926; P =
0.000; R = 0.362. Participants answer faster for their own faces than for
unknowns (p = 0.001), for friends' faces than for unknowns (p = 0.001), but no
significant difference is observed for their own face and that of friends
(p> 0.05).
In non-matching and inverted condition, no significant
difference is observed F (1.579, 33.157) = 2.170; P = 0.139.
In normal VS reversed match condition, no significant
difference is observed between his own face, the faces of the friend or
strangers (p> 0.05)
In normal condition VS inverted not matched, a significant
difference is observed for the faces of unknown F (1,21) = 11,534; P = 0.003; R
= 0.355: they recognize the faces of strangers more quickly in the place than
in the back.
Types of images :
For the other conditions, no significant interaction was observed
(p> 0.05).
In match and normal conditions, participants do not respond
significantly faster depending on the use of natural or standardized images,
either in relation to their own face F (1,21) = 0,011; P = 0.919 or that of
friend F (1.21) = 0.044; P = 0.836. On the other hand, the respondents respond
significantly faster for standardized images when the faces of unknowns are in
the right orientation matched F (1,21) = 23,26; P = 0.000; R = 0.526.
In non-match and normal conditions, the participants showed no
significant difference between the natural and standardized images either for
his own face F (1,21) = 0.301; P = 0.589; the faces of the friend F (1,21) =
0.106; P = 0.749 or unknown faces F (1,21) = 2,483; P = 0.130.
In the match and inverted condition, the participants showed
no significant difference between the natural and standardized images either
for his own face F (1,21) = 0,046; P = 0.832; The faces of their friend F
(1,21) = 0.126; P = 0.726. On the other hand, participants respond
significantly faster for standardized images when it comes to the faces of
unknowns F (1,21) = 4,372; P = 0.049; R = 0.172.
In a non-matching and inverted condition, participants showed
no significant difference between natural and standardized images either for
their own face F (1,21) = 0.627; P = 0.437, the faces of the friends F (1,21) =
0; P = 0.988 or unknown faces F (1.21) = 0.510; P = 0.483.
Quality of sleep effect :
For the ambient images : A significant
interaction is observed in inverse condition and not matched according to the
degree of familiarity F (1.5,30) = 3,820; P = 0.044; R = 0.160: according to
the diagram, a better average reaction time is observed for his own face when
participants have poor sleep quality than when they have good sleep. A better
average reaction time is also observed for friends' faces when participants
have poor sleep quality than when they have good sleep. No interaction for the
faces of strangers and the quality of sleep of the participants.
For the standardized images : No significant
interaction was observed for all conditions between average reaction times and
participants' sleep quality (p> 0.05).
ACCURACY
Types of images effect :
Match: On average, no significant difference is observed
between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in normal
condition for its own face (p = 0.512); The faces of friends (p = 0.521). On
the other hand, a significant difference is observed for the faces of unknowns
who are better recognized through standardized images (p = 0.000).
On average, a significant difference between the correct
response rates of standardized and natural images in reversed condition is
found for its own face, which is better recognized through standardized images
(p = 0.046) as well as for the faces of unknowns (p = 0.000). No significant
difference for friends' faces (p = 0.142).
Non-match: On average, there was no significant difference
between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in normal
condition for his own face (p = 0.713) and the face of friends (p = 1.000). On
the other hand, a significant difference is observed for the faces of unknowns
who are better recognized through standardized (p= 0.019).
On average, there was no significant difference between the
correct response rates of standardized and natural images in the reversed
condition for the faces of the friends (p = 0.272) and the faces of the
unknowns (p = 0.072). On the other hand, a significant difference is observed
for his own face, which would be better recognized through natural images (p =
0.033).
Degree of familiarity :
Match: On average, no significant difference is observed
between the correct response rates of natural images in normal condition for
his own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the
participants better recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the
unknown (p = 0.000) and better their own face than the unknown ones (p =
0.000).
On average, there is no significant difference between the
correct response rates of standardized images in reversed condition when
participants see their own faces and those of unknowns (p
On average, there was no significant difference between the
correct response rates of natural images in the inverted condition for her own
face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants
better recognize their own reversed face than the inverted unknowns (p = 0.000)
and better recognize the faces of inverted friends than the inverted unknowns
(p = 0.000).
Non-match: On average, there is no significant difference
between the correct response rates of natural images in inverted condition for
his own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the
participants better recognize their own reversed face than the inverted
unknowns (p = 0.003) and recognize the faces of inverted friends better than
the faces of reversed unknowns (p = 0.001).
On average, there was no significant difference between the
correct response rates of natural images in normal condition for her own face
and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better
recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the unknown (p = 0.002)
and better their own face than the unknown ones (p = 0.012).
Match: On average, there was no significant difference between
the correct response rates of standardized images in normal condition for his
own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants
better recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the unknown (p =
0.002) and better their own face than the unknown ones (p = 0.001).
On average, there was no significant difference between the
correct response rates of standardized images in inverted conditions for his
own face and that of friends, and between the faces of friends and unknowns
(p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants recognized their own face
better than the unknown (p = 0.000).
Non-match: On average, there was no significant difference
between the correct response rates of standardized images in normal condition
when participants saw their own faces and those of friends (p = 0.679), saw the
faces of friends compared to those of unknowns (p = 0.275) and see their own
faces compared to unknowns (p = 0.376).
= 0.822), see the faces of friends compared to those of unknowns
(p = 0.541) and see their own faces compared to friends (p = 0.376).
|
Orientation effect .
·
Match : On average, there was no significant difference in the
correct levels of the participants, with the natural images, when they
perceived their face to the right and wrong (p = 0.803), the face of the friend
to the right and wrong (p = 0.484) but better recognize the faces of the
unknowns in the place than in the back (p = 0.013).
Non-match : On average, there was no significant difference in
the correct levels of the participants, with the natural images, when they
perceived their face in the place and the wrong way (p = 0.527), the face of
the friend in the right orientation and upside-down (p = 0.739), from the
unknowns to the place and backwards (p = 0.919).
Match : On average, there was no significant difference in the
correct levels of the participants, with the standardized images, when they
perceived their face in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p =
0.102), the face of the friend in the wrong place and in the right orientation
(p = 0.124), from the unknowns to the place and backwards (p = 0.647).
Non-match : On average, there was no significant difference in
the correct levels of the participants, with the standardized images, when they
perceived their face in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p =
0.078), the face of the friend in the wrong place and in the right orientation
(p = 0.124), unknowns at the place and backwards (p = 0.262).
Quality of sleep effect .
·
For natural and standardized images, in match and non-match
situations, no significant difference was observed between all the correct
average response rates and the sleep quality status of the participants despite
the inversion effect, the degree of Familiarity (p> 0.05).
|
| 
