First-order difference counts during a serial RNG task.

<p>The data (<i>M</i> ± <i>SEM</i>) are presented in (A) control, (B) posthypnotic amnesia, and (C) post-cancellation conditions in the three participant groups and in simulated data. LS = low suggestible; LDHS = low dissociative highly suggestible; HDHS = high dissociative highly suggestible.</p

When provided with two sequences from the same subject and one from a different subject, a pattern analysis of the randomly generated sequences of 300 numbers identifies the alien sequence in up to 88% of the cases (<i>h</i> = 6).

<p>Error bars represent SEM.</p

Identification rates to identify the second sequence based on the pattern analysis of the first sequence (green) and for the first sequence based on the pattern analysis of the second sequence (blue) are displayed for every subject (within-subject design).

<p>Identification rates for the two same-subject sequences (e.g. 7, 12 and 20) are very high and show great similarity, whereas identification rates differ when contrasting sequences with other subjects (e.g. 9 and 15).</p

The success in predicting the second sequence based on the first sequence (green) and for the first sequence based on the second sequence (blue) is displayed for every subject.

<p>In some subjects (e.g. subjects 2, 4, 10, 14 and 18) prediction rates of both sequences are almost the same, whereas prediction rates differ in other subjects (e.g. subjects 16 and 20). The differences shown in subjects 16 and 20 might indicate that the subjects changed their strategies while generating random number sequences.</p

The prediction rate is shown as a function of the length of computed history (<i>h</i>).

<p>The prediction rate for sequences from the same subject is shown in black; the predication rate for sequences of different subjects is shown in red. The predication rate increases with the length of the computed sequence history. As <i>h</i> increases, the next sequence element can be predicted more precisely and with a history of length <i>h</i> = 7, 27% correct predictions of same-subject sequences can be made (chance performance  = 11%). Error bars represent SEM.</p

A demonstration of the pattern based approach.

<p>(A) In this sequence, the pattern (2, 1, 9, 6), marked in red, is predominant. Variations of this pattern are marked in orange. (B) demonstrates the concept of the edit distance according to Damerau-Levenshtein. The edit distance indicates the number of edit operations necessary to convert the humanly generated random number sequence at any position into a given pattern. A distance of 0 marks a perfect match (d). At a distance of 1, one edit operation is needed to convert the sequence string into the pattern (a: deletion, c: insertion). If the patterns do not match to the given string of the sequence, up to 4 edit operations are needed. Therefore the score is 4 (b). The inverse numbers of the edit operations are added up and this score represents the mathematical “affinity” of a given pattern to the humanly generated random sequence with a lower score for patterns with diminished “affinity” to the original sequence.</p

Overview of the general experimental procedure used in Study 1, 2 and 3.

<p>All studies were composed by two sessions performed in two different days, separated about one week. During the first session photos of participants’ face were taken. Moreover, participants performed: the Heartbeat Counting task; a subscale (i.e. Noticing) of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) and the Self Localization task. During the second session participants performed in counterbalanced order the SELF task and the FRIEND task in Study 1 and 2 and the SELF task and the FAMOUS FACE task in Study 3. During these tasks, participants observed a series of morphed faces (their own one and their friend one morphed with two unknown models) flashing on the monitor for 8 seconds (Study 1 and 2) or two single morphed faces (their own one and a famous character one morphed with two unknown models) for 2 minutes (Study 3). Immediately after the flashing faces participants were instructed to rate on visual analogue scale (VAS), how much of the own/friend or famous person’s facial features they perceived in a list of morphed stimuli. The SELF and FRIEND/FAMOUS task were composed by three blocks. Each block was associated to a different ‘Flashing Rate’ of stimuli presentation. At the end of the SELF and FRIEND/FAMOUS FACE task participants were asked whether they were aware of the research questions and hypotheses, then they were debriefed by the experimenter. Participant appearing in the picture gave written informed consent to publish this figure.</p

Summary of the main results.

<p>Panels a. and b. show the plots of X0 values collected in the SELF and in the FRIEND task in Study 1 and Study 2 respectively. Panel c. shows the plots of X0 values collected in the SELF and in the FAMOUS FACE task in Study 3.</p

Developmental curves of completion time and complexity, split by task, with trend curves and 95% confidence regions (shaded).

<p>Developmental curves of completion time and complexity, split by task, with trend curves and 95% confidence regions (shaded).</p

Sample descriptive statistics (<i>n</i>).

<p>Sample descriptive statistics (<i>n</i>).</p