Table 3.
Analyses of item recall accuracy
| Effect | Statistic | Explanatory Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pure Lists | ||
| Group | F(1,15) = 83.3, p < .0001 | Controls > SD |
| Frequency | F(1,15) = 131, p < .0001 | High frequency > low frequency |
| Imageability | F(1,15) = 14.1, p < .005 | High imageability > low imageability |
| Freq × group | F(1,15) = 5.1, p < .05 | Larger frequency effect in SD |
| Imageability × group | F(1,15) = 1.9, p >.1 | Both groups equally sensitive to imageability |
| Mixed Lists | ||
| Group | F(1,15) = 35.2, p < .0001 | Controls > SD |
| Lexicality | F(1,15) = 103, p < .0001 | Words > nonwords |
| Frequency | F(1,15) = 27.9, p < .0001 | High frequency > low frequency |
| Imageability | F(1,15) = 6.6, p < .05 | High imageability > low imageability |
| Lexicality × group | F(1,15) = 7.9, p < .02 | Larger lexicality effect in controls |
| Lexicality × frequency | F(1,15) = 13.0, p < .005 | Frequency effect larger for words (but significant for words and nonwords) |
| Lexicality × imageability | F(1,15) = 12.8, p < .005 | Imageability effect larger for words (no effect for nonwords) |
| Mixed Lists – Number of Words | ||
| List composition | F(2,30) = 6.0, p < .01 | Higher accuracy for lists containing more words |
| Composition × group | F(2,30) = 6.3, p = .005 | Controls affected by list composition; SD patients were not |
| Composition × lexicality | F(2,30) = 3.4, p < .05 | List composition affected words more than nonwords |
| Pure vs. Mixed Lists | ||
| Group | F(1,15) = 408, p < .0001 | Controls > SD |
| Frequency | F(1,15) = 131, p < .0001 | High frequency > low frequency |
| Imageability | F(1,15) = 18.2, p = .001 | High imageability > low imageability |
| List type | F(1,15) = 22.9, p < .001 | Pure > mixed |
| List type × group | F(1,15) = 8.4, p < .05 | No list type effect in SD |
| List type × frequency | F(1,15) = 5.4, p < .05 | Larger frequency effect in pure lists |
| List type × frequency × imageability | F(1,15) = 5.3, p < .05 | Pure: larger imageability effect on high frequency lists. Mixed: larger imageability effect on low frequency lists |
All main effects and significant interactions are reported. Explanatory notes are based on post-hoc tests not reported in full here. Analysis of pure vs. mixed lists focused on words presented in both conditions.