Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychologia. 2014 Jan 18;56:147–166. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.01.007

Table C1.

Summary of the statistical analysis for the pre-onset negativity in Experiments 1 and 2a.

Exp. 1 (−350 – +50ms) Exp. 2a (−200 – +50ms)
ANOMALY ANOMALY × ROI
LAT: F(2,44) = 3.95, p=0.02
 detected vs. non-detected: F(1,22)=5.10,
 p=0.034, marginally significant
 detected vs. control: F(1,22) = 7.61,
 p=0.011
LAT: F(6,126) = 5.73, p=0.002
 ANOMALY
 - no effect in any ROI -
MID: F(10,210)= 4.97, p=0.009
 ANOMALY
 PZ: F(2,42)= 3.48, p = 0.040
  detected vs. control: F(1,21) =
  8.13, p=0.009
 POZ: F(2,42)= 4.15, p = 0.023
  detected vs. non-detected:
  F(1,21), = 8.73, p=0.007
  detected vs. control: F(1,21) =
  8.30, p=0.009
MID: F(2,44)= 5.74, p=0.006
 detected vs. non-detected: F(1,22)=7.80,
 p=0.010
 detected vs. control: F(1,22) = 10.80,
 p=0.003

Only effects that reached significance are reported. Analogous to the analyses reported in the main text, a modified Bonferroni procedure was used to account for multiple testing, resulting in a corrected threshold of p= 0.033 for pairwise comparisons.