{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017287234042553192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003989361702127659, 'mean_word_length': 5.435897435897436, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stimulus Duration May Affect Partial Report Performance

Townsend, and Di Lollo and Moscovitch investigated the retention of item information in nearly identical variations of the partial report task. Whereas Townsend found a slight decrement in performance as the interval increased, Di Lollo and Moscovitch found a substantial increment. An experimental study of procedural differences that may have led to this discrepancy is reported. The results suggest that stimulus duration may have been responsible: Di Lollo and Moscovitch used extremely short durations (2 ms), while Townsend used longer durations (50 ms). This difference in durations may be important when the stimulus array and the partial report probe occur in close temporal contiguity.