Table 5.

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 600-1000 ms time-window

	Analysis			Contrast	df	F-value
Midline:	Omnibus – interactions involving Comprehensibility and Congruence			Cm × C	1,30	6.249*
	Planned comparisons by Comprehensibility
	More comprehensible			C × R	4,120	9.670**
		Planned comparisons by Region
		Anterior-frontal		C	1,30	15.859**
		Frontal		C	1,30	6.508*
	Less comprehensible			C × G	1,30	10.550**
		Planned comparisons by Group
		Controls		C	1,15	17.076**
				C × R	4,60	10.509**
			Planned comparisons by Region
			Frontal	C	1,15	9.241**
			Central	C	1,15	15.175**
			Parietal	C	1,15	29.221**
			Occipital	C	1,15	31.529**
		Planned comparisons by Congruence Level
		Incongruous		G	1.30	13.475**
				G × R	4,120	6.537**
			Planned comparisons by Region
			Frontal	G	1,30	10.446**
			Central	G	1,30	18.508**
			Parietal	G	1,30	20.598**
			Occipital	G	1,30	6.951*
Lateral:	Omnibus: Interactions involving Comprehensibility and Congruence			Cm × C	1,30	4.687*
	Planned comparisons by Comprehensibility Level
	More comprehensible			C × R	1,30	12.984**
	Less comprehensible			C × G	1,30	8.302**
		Planned comparisons by Group
		Controls		C	1,15	15.534**
				C × R	1,15	22.967**
			Planned comparisons by Region
			Parietal	C	1,15	29.114**
		Planned comparisons by Congruence Level
		Incongruous		G	1,30	9.131**
				G × R	1,30	5.549*
			Planned comparisons by Region
			Parietal	C	1,30	13.988**

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

^**p < .01;

^*p < .05