Table 8.
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of ANOVA effects.
| Post-hoc pairwise comparisons | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Mean (SE)group1 | Mean (SE)group2 | P-value |
| Age | 0.792 (0.0002)old | 0.802 (0.0002)young | 7.70  10−73
|
| Network | 0.820 (0.0005)EF | 0.809 (0.0004)PercMot | 1.61  10−40
|
| 0.820 (0.0005)EF | 0.767 (0.0003)Power | 6.17  10−172
|
|
| 0.820 (0.0005)EF | 0.786 (0.0004)Random | 2.81  10−124
|
|
| 0.809 (0.0004)PercMot | 767 (0.0003)Power | 1.42  10−160
|
|
| 0.809 (0.0004)PercMot | 793 (0.0001)Random | 1.39  10−89
|
|
| 767 (0.0003)Power | 793 (0.0001)Random | 1.92  10−161
|
|
| Demand Level | 0.793 (0.0003)HD | 0.802 (0.0002)LD | 1.55  10−74
|
Note. EF = executive-function-related network, PercMot = perceptuo-motor-related network, Power = Power et al.’s (2011) graph of putative functional areas, Random = average of 10 randomly computed brain networks, HD = high-demand, LD = low-demand, SE = standard error.