Skip to main content
. 2024 May 3;19(5):e0299705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299705

Table 3. Post-hoc analyses comparing pre training performance with training and post training performance per subgroup for RBD (a.) and LBD (b.) patients.

pre training vs. training pre training vs. post training training vs. post training
Group Var. z p ex p adj r BF z p ex p adj r BF z p ex p adj r BF
a. RBD
not impaired star
canellation		 acc 3.35 < .001 < .001 0.61 364.27
(BF-0)		 3.41 < .001 < .001 0.62 330.97
(BF-0)		 1.73 .085 .256 0.32 0.31
(BF0+)
d’ 3.41 < .001 < .001 0.62 2184.32
(BF-0)		 3.35 < .001 < .001 0.61 361.71
(BF-0)		 1.93 .055 .166 0.35 0.20
(BF0+)
c 3.24 < .001 .001 0.59 150.08
(BF+0)		 3.18 < .001 .001 0.58 351.41
(BF+0)		 1.48 .151 .454 0.27 0.47
(BF0-)
impaired
star cancellation		 acc 2.78 .003 .010 0.51 64:97
(BF-0)		 1.82 .070 .211 0.33 2.83
(BF-0)		 2.36 .016 .047 0.43 13.09
(BF+0)
d’ 2.78 .003 .010 0.51 66.96
(BF-0)		 2.05 .041 .124 0.37 6.18
(BF-0)		 2.39 .015 .045 0.44 14.40
(BF+0)
c 3.01 .001 .003 0.55 151.52
(BF+0)		 0.97 .359 1.00 0.18 0.56
(BF+0)		 3.24 < .001 .001 0.59 337.76
(BF-0)
b. LBD
not impaired gesture imitation acc 3.30 < .001 .001 0.60 371.72
(BF-0)		 3.24 < .001 .001 0.59 193.37
(BF-0)		 1.99 .046 .139 0.36 0.21
(BF0+)
d’ 3.07 < .001 .003 0.56 109.91
(BF-0)		 2.73 .004 .013 0.50 64.21
(BF-0)		 1.70 .095 .284 0.31 0.32
(BF0+)
c 3.35 < .001 < .001 0.61 302.79
(BF+0)		 2.61 .007 .020 0.48 16.56
(BF+0)		 1.42 .169 .506 0.26 0.50
(BF0+)
impaired gestures imitation acc 2.61 .007 .020 0.48 34.11
(BF-0)		 1.82 .070 .209 0.33 2.72
(BF-0)		 1.90 .057 .172 0.35 0.23
(BF0+)
d’ 2.39 .015 .045 0.44 15.82
(BF-0)		 1.25 .229 .688 0.23 1.16
(BF-0)		 1.76 .083 .250 0.32 0.49
(BF0+)
c 2.78 .003 .010 0.51 63.35
(BF+0)		 1.36 .188 .563 0.25 1.47
(BF+0)		 1.59 .121 .362 0.29 0.65
(BF0-)

Note. padj = Bonferroni adjusted p-values.

Please note. Bayes factors BF+0 (acc, d’) and BF-0 (c) reflect the support for the alternative hypothesis (better performance during training). Bayes factors BF0+ and BF0- reflect the support for the null hypothesis (no decline in performance after training). Bayes factors BF0+ and BF0- < 1 provide support for the alternative hypothesis. Bayes factors BF+0 and BF-0 < 1 provide support for the null hypothesis.