Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2014 Jan 28;15(2):187–202. doi: 10.1007/s10162-013-0440-x

TABLE 1.

Results from the two-way repeated measures ANOVAs, applied separately for each eCAP characteristic

		Main effects			Interaction effects
		IPG^a	PD^a	Group	IPG × PD^a	IPG × group^a	PD × group^a
Amplitude	F	56.9 (1.2, 17)	28.9 (1.4, 20)	11.6 (2, 14)	13.5 (4.7, 66)	1.0 (2.4, 17)	1.0 (2.8, 20)
Amplitude	P	<0.001	<0.001	0.0011	<0.001	0.42	0.42
Slope	F	40.1 (1.1, 15)	11.0 (2.2, 30)	11.3 (2, 14)	4.8 (4.8, 68)	5.3 (2.2, 15)	0.84 (4.3, 30)
Slope	P	<0.001	<0.001	0.0011	<0.001	0.016	0.52
Threshold	F	131 (1.5, 21)	6.4 (2.3, 32)	2.3 (2, 14)	13.8 (2.9, 40)	2.1 (3.0, 21)	1.6 (4.6, 32)
Threshold	P	<0.001	0.0034	0.13	<0.001	0.13	0.21
Dynamic range	F	15.8 (1.3, 18)	3.7 (2.3, 32)	9.4 (2, 14)	3.3 (3.4, 48)	5.5 (2.6, 18)	1.6 (4.6, 32)
Dynamic range	P	<0.001	0.031	0.0026	0.024	0.0089	0.20
Level_50%	F	242 (1.9, 27)	2.9 (1.4, 20)	3 (2, 14)	28.6 (4.5, 62)	6.1 (3.9, 27)	0.55 (2.9, 20)
Level_50%	P	<0.001	0.091	0.31	<0.001	0.0013	0.65
Latency	F	28.2 (1.9, 26)	247 (2.6, 37)	4.9 (2, 14)	4.1 (7.1, 100)	13.6 (3.7, 26)	0.74 (5.3, 37)
Latency	P	<0.001	<0.001	0.024	<0.001	<0.001	0.60^b

Degrees of freedom given in brackets

^aGreenhouse–Geisser corrected

^bInteraction of PD × IPG × group was significant [F _(14,100) = 1.8; P = 0.049]