Table 4.

Results of statistical analyses contrasting ERP effects evoked by the more and less comprehensible incongruous (vs. congruous) video endings between patient and control groups in the 225-325 ms and 325-525 ms time-windows

	Analysis			Contrast	df	F-value by Time-Window of Interest
						225-325ms	325-525ms
Midline:	Omnibus – interactions involving Comprehensibility and Congruence			Cm × C × G	1,30		5.692*
				Cm × C × R × G	4,120	6.167**	5.357**
	Planned comparisons by Region
	Anterior-frontal			Cm × C × G	1,30	8.238**	10.029**
		Planned comparisons by Group
		Controls		Cm × C	1,15		11.113**
		Patients		C	1,15		5.202*
				Cm × C	1,15	6.829*
		Planned comparisons by Comprehensibility
		More Comprehensible		C	1,30		11.681**
		Less Comprehensible		C × G	1,30	4.507*	5.824*
			Planned comparisons by Congruence
			Incongruous	G	1,30		4.924*
	Frontal			Cm × C × G	1,30		7.325*
		Planned comparisons by Group
		Controls		Cm × C	1,15		6.206*
		Patients		C	1,15		16.239**
		Planned comparisons by Comprehensibility
		More Comprehensible		C	1,30		15.023**
		Less Comprehensible		C × G	1,30		9.437**
			Planned comparisons by Congruence
			Incongruous	G	1,30		5.361*
Lateral:	Omnibus – interactions involving Comprehensibility and Congruence			Cm × C × G	1,30		4.363*
				Cm × C × R × G	1,30	5.834*	5.642*
	Planned comparisons by Region
	Frontal			Cm × C × G	1,30		7.884**
		Planned comparisons by Group
		Controls		Cm × C	1,15		6.919*
		Patients		C	1,15		16.325**
		Planned comparisons by Comprehensibility
		More Comprehensible		C	1,30		13.214**
		Less Comprehensible		C × G	1,30		8.321**

Note: df – degrees of freedom; Cm × C × G – Comprehensibility by Congruous by Group interaction; Cm × C × R × G – Comprehensibility by Congruous by Region by Group interaction; Cm × C – Comprehensibility by Congruous interaction; C – effect of Congruence; C × G – Congruence by Group interaction; G – effect of Group.

^**p < .01;

^*p < .05