Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Aug 3.
Published in final edited form as: Comput Speech Lang. 2012 May 8;27(1):116–134. doi: 10.1016/j.csl.2012.04.002

Table 4:

Results of comparison of speech characteristics and drug effects. Comparisons with TPM were based on 20 subjects. Comparisons with LZP were based on 11 subjects.

Group means Correlations
Speech Variable Baseline TPM LZP PBO TPM ρ LZP ρ
Manual
SDR .068 .085 .062 .048 .47 (.03) .34 (.31)
MVL (ms) 107 114 94 97 .26 (.27) .76 (.01)
Automatic
MPD (ms) 89.9 91.8 91.1 86.22 .21 (.37) .25 (.45)
SPR (w/s) 3.25 3.31 3.42 3.55 .11 (.64) .06 (.85)
AVL (ms) 21.7 22.9 22.1 22.8 −.08 (.75) .43 (.19)
AVL-C2 (ms) 15.03 15.6 14.8 14.8 .02 (.94) −.30 (.37)
Cognitive
Ph-fluency 15.42 11.51 15.14 15.00 −.34 (.14) .54 (.09)