Table 3.

Correlations between complementary cognitive tasks and PM for the whole sample.

	EBPM	TBPM	High Load	Low Load
Executive Functions
Shifting	−0.32 t	0.12	−0.20	−0.06
Inhibition	0.45**	0.36*	0.49**	0.44**
Updating	0.26	0.15	0.32t	0.14
Processing Speed	0.43**	0.35*	0.48**	0.42**
Sustained Attention	0.26	0.06	0.17	0.23
Binding in Working Memory	0.65**	0.30	0.56**	0.57**
Retrospective Episodic Memory	0.60**	0.11	0.49**	0.41*
Time Monitoring		0.29
PRMQ
Prospective failures	0.22	−0.11	0.12	0.04
Retrospective failures	−0.10	−0.20	−0.12	−0.21

Note:

^t: trend;

^*p<0.05;

^**p<0.01.

When correlations were assessed on 52 subjects, correlations of processing speed became no significant with TBPM and low load condition (r = 0.24, ns; and r = 0.35, ns; respectively) and marginal with EBPM (r = 0.41; p < 0.10). Moreover, correlation between TBPM and inhibition became marginal (r = 0.40; p < 0.10) as well as the low load condition and retrospective memory one (r = 0.41; p < 0.10). We assumed that these weaker effects were due to the reduced number of subjects, resulting in less statistical power.