\section{Features at fixation points}
%classical actual vs control, effect size, Frank's analysis
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\label{actualvscontrolfig}
\centering
\fbox{ \begin{minipage}{\textwidth}\begin{tabular}{cccc}
Osnabr\"uck & Montana & Bochum humans & Bochum monkeys \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{luminance contrast} \\
\input{acluminancehumans.tex} & \input{acluminancemonkeys.tex} & \input{acluminanceBSH.tex} & \input{acluminanceBSM.tex} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{texture contrast} \\
\input{actexturehumans.tex} & \input{actexturemonkeys.tex} & \input{actextureBSH.tex} & \input{actextureBSM.tex} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{barness} \\
\input{acbarnesshumans.tex} & \input{acbarnessmonkeys.tex}  \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Feature contrasts at fixation points versus controls}
The scatterplots depict median contrast on actual and control fixation. Points in the upper bisector indicate an elevation of feature contrast at fixations. Compare fig. \ref{actualvscontroltable}. 
\end{minipage} }
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{actualvscontrolfig} gives scatterplot graphs for luminace contrast, texture contrast, and barness (from top to bottom) for humans (left) and monkeys (right). Table \ref{actualvscontroltable} shows the corresponding effect sizes and the percentage of points in upper sector. Points in the upper bisector show elevation of feature values compared to controls. Effect sizes are defined as $\frac{\mu (actual-control)}{\mu (control)}$. Quite unexpectedly, by measure of effect size and elevation at fixation points, luminance contrast and texture contrast for humans exceed those of monkeys. Only for barness, we found comparatively higher elevation at fixation points in monkeys, however, also here, the effect size is lower than for humans. \cite{Lierhaus}, comparing with \cite{ReinagelZador} had concluded there was a considerable increase of the influence of luminance contrast in monkeys. \cite{Einhaeuser2006} had reported similar degrees of influence for both luminance contrast and texture contrast. Results from computations on his data set can be seen in table \ref{actualvscontroltable}. % this is for discussion!! Expected stupid monkeys, found stupid humans? Differences not clear! Monkeys don't understand pictures? cf. Einhaeuser2006. Show image illustrations. Differences in images, e.g. categories (Alper, 2006)? Surprising higher influence of feature contrasts in humans. However, the Bochum experiments are not that clear-cut as to this point. 
% for humans in LC and TC, characteristic distribution on the scatterplot. However monkeys -- don't they recognize a scene. To what extend are the experimental settings ecologically valid for monkeys?

\begin{singlespacing}  % line spacing 1
\begin{table}[!htb]
\label{actualvscontroltable}
\centering
\fbox{ \begin{minipage} {\textwidth}\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
{ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Osnabr\"uck/Montana} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Bochum LS} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Bochum SS} \\
\textbf{} & humans & monkeys & humans & monkeys & humans & monkeys \\
\hline
LC \\
{  } elevation & 0.92 & 0.70 & 0.57 & 0.47& 0.47 & 0.73\\
{  } effect size & 0.37 & 0.16 & 0.05 & {-0.01 } & {-0.01} & 0.08\\
\hline
TC \\
{  } elevation &  0.85 &  0.68 & 0.69 & 0.53 & 0.62 & 0.54\\
{  } effect size &  0.22 &  0.09 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.05 & 0.02\\
\hline
barness & \\
{  } elevation &  0.62 & 0.67 & - & -& -& -\\
{  } effect size & 0.08 & 0.08  & -& -& -& -\\
 \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Influences of feature contrasts}
\end{center}
Percentage of points in the upper bisector and effect sizes in humans and monkeys for luminance contrast (LC), texture contrast (TC), and barness. (cf. fig. \ref{actualvscontrolfig})
\end{minipage} }
\end{table}
\end{singlespacing}  % double line spacing

\begin{figure}[!htb]
\label{condfeatures}
\centering
\fbox{ \begin{minipage}{\textwidth}\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ Osnabr\"uck  and Montana } \\
\input{conditionallc.tex} & \input{conditionaltc.tex} & \input{conditionalbarness.tex}  \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Conditional probability of fixations at feature contrasts}
The red and blue lines show feature distributions at fixations for monkeys and humans in experiments 1 and 2. The straight horizontal line shows the baseline over all images (as per equalized histogram). The error bars show standard errors within the bins. 
\end{minipage} }
\end{figure}

\begin{singlespacing}  
\begin{table}[!htb]
\label{condfeaturestable}
\centering
\fbox{ \begin{minipage} {\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ luminance contrast } \\
 {} & monkeys & humans \\
entropy & 4.14 & 4.03 \\
correlations  &   \multicolumn{2}{c}{  r=08701, p=0.0000 } \\ 
signed-test & \multicolumn{2}{c}{  0, p= 0.9702 } \\ 
kstest & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0, p=0.7710 } \\
\end{tabular}
% median  0.0185 ,  1.2211 
% std 0.8841 ,  0.9384 
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ texture contrast } \\
 {} & monkeys & humans \\
entropy & 4.12 & 4.06 \\
correlations  &   \multicolumn{2}{c}{  r=0.7496, p=0.0001 } \\ 
signed-test & \multicolumn{2}{c}{  0, p= 0.6274 } \\ 
kstest & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0, p=0.7710 } \\
\end{tabular}
% median  0.0159 ,  1.2223 
% std 0.8814 ,  0.9396 
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ barness } \\
 {} & monkeys & humans \\
entropy & 4.07 & 4.22 \\
correlations  &  \multicolumn{2}{c} {  r= 0.8369, p=0.0000 }  \\ 
{   } p-values  &  0.0931  &  0.0661  \\ 
signed-test & \multicolumn{2}{c}{  0, p= 0.6012 } \\ 
kstest & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0, p=0.2753 } \\
\end{tabular}
% median  0.0149 ,  1.2224 
% std 0.8817 ,  0.9397 
\caption{Conditional probability of fixations at feature contrasts}
\end{minipage} }
\end{table}
\end{singlespacing}  % double line spacing

