Table 2.
Statistical comparison between group * load * stimulus type.
| Group-by-type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Stimulus type | HCs | bvFTD | AD | PD | Stats | Post-hoc comparisons |
| Social | − 0.31 (0.84) | 0.23 (0.99) | 0.52 (0.97) | − 0.05 (0.93) | F3,240 = 4.99, P = 0.002*, ηp2 = 0.06 | HCs-bvFTD: P = 0.001* HCs-AD: P < 0.001* HCs-PD: P = 0.10 |
| Nonsocial | − 0.44 (0.92) | 0.35 (0.98) | 0.53 (0.96) | − 0.19 (0.95) | HCs-bvFTD: P < 0.001* HCs-AD: P < 0.001* HCs-PD: P = 0.23 | |
|
| ||||||
| Group-by-load | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Load level | HCs | bvFTD | AD | PD | Stats | Post-hoc comparisons |
|
| ||||||
| Triplets | − 1.04 (0.76) | − 0.19 (1.04) | 0.1 (1.07) | − 0.59 (0.92) | F6,480 = 7.28, P < 0.001*, ηp2 = 0.08 | HCs-bvFTD: P < 0.001* HCs-AD: P < 0.001* HCs-PD: P = 0.01* |
| Quartets | − 0.42 (0.67) | 0.21 (0.92) | 0.56 (0.89) | − 0.26 (0.83) | HCs-bvFTD: P < 0.001* HCs-AD: P < 0.001* HCs-PD: P = 0.69 | |
| Quintets | 0.35 (0.58) | 0.85 (0.68) | 0.92 (0.72) | 0.5 (0.71) | HCs-bvFTD: P < 0.001* HCs-AD: P < 0.001* HCs-PD: P = 0.41 | |
Results are presented as mean (SD). The asterisk (*) indicates significant differences with an alpha level of P < 0.05. Between-group comparison on WM performance (normalized inverse efficiency score [IES]) for stimulus type (social, non-social) and load level (triplets, quartets, quintets) was assessed through a mixed model ANOVA (type III) and Tukey post-hoc comparisons. Effects sizes were calculated through partial eta (ηp2). Results are plotted in Fig. 1C. AD: Alzheimer’s disease, bvFTD: behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia, HCs: healthy controls, PD: Parkinson’s disease.