Table 3.
Statistics on percentage of correct responses.
| Effects | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Action | F(1, 85) = 62.56, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.42 | F(1, 93) = 50.87, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.35 |
| Go > no-go | go: = 87 ± 12% no-go: = 73 ± 21% t(86) = 7.97, p < 0.001 | go: = 91 ± 9% no-go: = 79 ± 18% t(94) = 7.68, p < 0.001 |
| Time | F(1, 85) = 135.92, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.62 | F(1, 93) = 189.21, p = < 0.001, η2 = 0.67 |
| 2nd half > 1st half | 1st half: = 74 ± 15% 2nd half: = 86 ± 16% t(86) = 11.89, p < 0.001 | 1st half: = 78 ± 13% 2nd half: = 92 ± 13% t(94) = 14.68, p < 0.001 |
| Action × valence | F(1, 85) = 44.41, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.34 | F(1, 93) = 37.72, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.29 |
| Go to win > go to avoid losing | gw: = 91 ± 14% gal: = 82 ± 14% t(86) = 6.28, p < 0.001 | gw: = 95 ± 12% gal: = 87 ± 10% t(94) = 5.74, p < 0.001 |
| No-go to avoid losing > no-go to win | ngw: = 66 ± 32% ngal: = 81 ± 16% t(86) = 4.99, p < 0.001 | ngw: = 73 ± 30% ngal: = 86 ± 11% t(94) = 4.63, p < 0.001 |
| Action × time | F(1, 85) = 19.09, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.18 | F(1, 93) = 59.77, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.39 |
| 1st half(go—no-go) > 2nd half(go—no-go) | 1st half: = 17 ± 17% 2nd half: = 9 ± 18% t(86) = 4.62, p < 0.001 | 1st half: = 18 ± 17% 2nd half: = 6 ± 16% t(94) = 8.46, p < 0.001 |
| Action × valence × time × genotype | F(1, 85) = 5.24, p = 0.025, η2 = 0.06 | F(1, 93) = 4.59, p = 0.035, η2 = 0.05 |
| A1−(ngw(2nd—1st half)) > A1+(ngw(2nd—1st half)) | A1+: = 8 ± 21% A1−: = 22 ± 26% t(85) = 2.78, p = 0.007 | A1+: = 15 ± 22% A1−: = 25 ± 24% t(93) = 2.16, p = 0.033 |
Means ± standard deviations are shown. Only effects that were significant in both cohorts are reported. ANOVA was computed with percent correct responses as dependent variable and action, valence, time and genotype as independent variables. Paired t-tests and t-tests for independent samples were performed as post-hoc tests. gw, go to win; gal, go to avoid losing; ngw, no-go to win; ngal, no-go to avoid losing. A1+; carriers of the A1 allele. A1−; A2 homozygotes.