Table 3.
Summary of findings for the FEM acute studies
| Cognitive function | Controls | FEM | Statistics | Study | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain | Test | Specific | n | Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | p value | Effect size | First author (year) |
| Executive function | Wisconsin Card Sorting Test | Perseverative errors (%) | 48 | 12.4 (10.7) | 21 | 19.2 (12.2) | 0.01a,b | 0.59e | Fleck et al. (2008) |
| Perseverative responses (n) | 48 | 14.8 (18.9) | 21 | 28.3 (22.6) | 0.01a,b | 0.65e | |||
| Non-perseverative errors (n) | 48 | 13.1 (14.8) | 21 | 19.5 (13.8) | 0.001a,b | 0.43e | |||
| Unique errors (n) | 48 | 1.8 (5.3) | 21 | 4.9 (8.6) | 0.001a,b | 0.47e | |||
| Failure to maintain set (n) | 48 | 0.6 (0.9) | 21 | 0.5 (1.0) | 0.32a | 0.13e | |||
| Stop signal design | Targets, correct (%) | 16 | 50 (12) | 16 | 44 (20) | 0.13c | NR | Strakowski et al. (2008) | |
| Stops, correct (%) | 16 | 89 (9) | 16 | 91 (7) | 0.25c | NR | |||
| Discriminability | 16 | 0.85 (0.04) | 16 | 0.87 (0.06) | 0.27c | NR | |||
| Bias | 16 | 0.14 (0.03) | 16 | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.17c | NR | |||
| Target, RT (ms) | 16 | 580 (10) | 16 | 575 (36) | 0.57c | NR | |||
| Controlled Oral Word Association Test | FAS | 30 | 39.57 (11.07) | 19 | 38.52 (10.95) | >0.05d | NR | Lebowitz et al. (2001) | |
| Animal category | 30 | 19.71 (3.69) | 19 | 18.43 (3.63) | >0.05d | NR | |||
n, number; RT, reaction time; ms, milliseconds; NR, not reported. aKruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests; bsignificant difference between groups after Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons; cone-sample t-tests; done-way or univariate analysis of variance; eCohen’s d.