Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Oct 8.
Published in final edited form as: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 Apr 16;90(2-3):183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.03.005

Table 1.

Performance differences in the temporal processing tasks between SDI and control subjects with education controlled for as a covariate.

Temporal processing tasks Stimulant-dependent individuals Control subjects F
df = 27
p

Mean Mean
Duration discrimination
Weber fraction Δt / t
100 ms .440 .315 .361 .553
1000 ms .183 .118 9.292 .0025*
Temporal reproduction
Mean reproduced interval [θ]
1000 ms 1.016 1.076 2.440 .075
2000 ms .912 1.014 9.500 .0025*
3000 ms .908 .947 .433 .251
4000 ms .827 .916 1.311 .131
5000 ms .804 .871 .463 .250
CV reproduced interval
1000 ms 21.6 11.3 10.531 .0015*
2000 ms 15.9 8.6 2.364 .075
3000 ms 11.0 8.2 2.064 .081
4000 ms 11.3 7.4 1.186 .143
5000 ms 13.4 8.7 4.318 .023

Sensorimotor Synchronization
Mean Asynchrony [ms]
1000 ms 2.60 −34.0 .159 .346
2000 ms −40.3 −51.4 1.340 .129
4000 ms −169.8 −144.8 .275 .303
Missed synchronizations [%]
1000 ms 17.4% 9.5% .065 .400
2000 ms 32.4% 27.6% .267 .305
4000 ms 60.6% 46.3% .144 .303

Continuation Tapping
Mean inter-tap interval [θ]
1000 ms .938 1.036 5.497 .0135*
2000 ms .960 .991 .309 .291
4000 ms .961 1.025 .810 .188
CV inter-tap interval
1000 ms 6.2 4.7 4.299 .024
2000 ms 7.6 4.9 7.605 .005*
4000 ms 5.5 5.4 .055 .996

Time estimation (53 sec interval)
Mean estimate [θ] 1.513 1.122 3.984 .0253*
*

significant difference with initial alpha level of .05. Bonferroni-adjusted for multiple tests (duration discrimination: p < 0.025, temporal reproduction: p < 0.001, sensorimotor synchronization and continuation tapping: p < 0.0167, time estimation: p < 0.05)