Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychologia. 2008 Dec 9;47(3):747–760. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.001

Table 5.

Analyses of phoneme migration rates

Effect Statistic Explanatory Notes
Pure Lists
Group F(1,15) = 111, p < .0001 SD > controls
Frequency F(1,15) = 68.2, p < .0001 Low frequency > high frequency
Imageability F(1,15) = 14.4, p = .002 Low imageability > high imageability
Frequency × group F(1,15) = 46.5, p < .0001 Larger frequency effect in SD
Mixed Lists
Group F(1,15) = 146, p < .0001 SD > controls
Lexicality F(1,15) = 42.7, p < .0001 Nonwords > words
Frequency F(1,15) = 17.4, p = .001 Low frequency > high frequency
Imageability F(1,15) < 1 No imageability effect
Frequency × group F(1,15) = 3.7, p = .07 Trend towards larger effect in SD
Mixed Lists – Number of Words
List composition F(2,30) = 2.9, p = .07 Trend toward more migrations in lists containing fewer words
Composition × group F(2,30) = 3.6, p < .05 Controls affected by list composition; SD patients were not
Pure vs. Mixed Lists
Group F(1,15) = 82.9, p < .0001 SD > controls
Frequency F(1,15) = 43.2, p < .0001 Low frequency > high frequency
Imageability F(1,15) = 1.2, n.s. No imageability effect
List type F(1,15) = 3.5, p = .08 Trend toward mixed > pure
Frequency × group F(1,15) = 16.6, p = .001 Larger frequency effect in SD
List type × group F(1,15) = 2.3, n.s. Effect did not differ between groups
List type × frequency × group F(1,15) = 9.9, p < .01 SD: Weak trend toward mixed > pure for high frequency lists. No difference in effect for controls

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.