Table 2. Antisaccade Performance for Schizophrenia Participants, Their First-Degree Relatives, and Community Comparison Subjects.
| Schizophrenia participants (S) | First-degree relatives (R) | Community comparison subjects (C) | Test for differencesd | Post hoc comparisonse | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 219 | 443 | 416 | |||
| Proportion interpretablea | 0.92 (0.12) | 0.96 (0.09) | 0.96 (0.09) | Group | F(2,404) =13.6, p<.0001 | S< R, C |
| Site | F(6,665) = 4.0, p=.0007 | |||||
| Proportion correcta | 0.60 (0.26) | 0.79 (0.20) | 0.82 (0.16) | Group | F(2,401) =116.0, p<.0001 | S< R, C |
| Site | F(6,665) =5.1, p<.0001 | |||||
| Age | F(1,401) = 30.0, p<.0001 | |||||
| Sex | F(1,401) =4.8, p= .03 | |||||
| Proportion correct 10°a | 0.57 (0.27) | 0.75 (0.22) | 0.79 (0.17) | Degree | F(1,1077) = 352.3, p<.0001 | 10°<15° |
| Proportion correct 15°a | 0.64 (0.27) | 0.82 (0.20) | 0.84 (0.16) | |||
| Latency to correct (ms)a,b,f | 425 (99) 2 NAs | 401 (72) 1 NA | 392 (70) | Group × Age | F(2,394) =5.1, p=.007 | |
| Group × Smoker | F(2,394)=3.4, p=.03 | |||||
| Site | F(6,664) =3.1, p=.005 | |||||
| Sex | F(1,394) = 19.3, p<.0001 | |||||
| Parent Ed | F(1,394) = 14.4, p= .0002 | |||||
| Latency to incorrect (ms)a,c,f | 243 (70) | 255 (74) | 256 (72) | Group × Age | F(2,393) =4.4, p=.01 | |
| Site | F(6,660) =1.9, p=.08 | |||||
| Sex | F(1,393) =4.7, p=.03 | |||||
| Gain of correcta | 0.88 (0.20) | 0.96 (0.15) | 0.95 (0.16) | Group | F(2,402) = 21.2, p<.0001 | S< R, C |
| Site | F(6,664) =2.5, p=.02 | |||||
a
Mean (± SD).
b
Final model includes group, site, age, sex, smoker, parent education, group × age, and group × smoker.
c
Final model includes group, site, age, sex, and group × age.
d
Marginal conditional F-test based on linear mixed-effect model.
e
Based on Fisher's LSD from linear mixed-effect model.
f
Test for main effect of group is not applicable due to significant interaction terms that include group.