Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 22;10(6):e0131065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131065

Table 3. Experiment 1: Results from a 3 (sound sequence) × 2 (valence) repeated-measures ANOVA on stimulus ratings, reaction times (RT), and phasic sympathetic arousal as estimated from skin conductance responses (SCR); and from a one-way ANOVA on tonic sympathetic arousal as estimated from spontaneous fluctuations (SF) in skin conductance.

Rating Valence F (1,56) = 1101.8 η2 = .952 p < .001
unpredictable vs. predictable predictable vs. silence
Sound F (1,56) = 3.0 η2 = .051 p = .09 F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .002 n.s.
Valence x Sound F (1,56) = 7.4 η2 = .117 p < .01 F (1,56) = 1.7 η2 = .952 n.s.
RT Valence F (1,56) = 21.9 η2 = .282 p < .001
unpredictable vs. predictable predictable vs. silence
Sound F (1,56) = 1.7 η2 = .020 n. s. F (1,56) = 2.3 η2 = .040 n.s.
Valence x Sound F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .004 n. s. F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .003 n.s.
SCR Valence F (1,56) = 21.5 η2 = .277 p < .001
unpredictable vs. predictable predictable vs. silence
Sound F (1,56) = 6.0 η2 = .096 p < .05 F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .003 n.s.
Valence x Sound F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .000 n.s. F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .000 n.s.
SF unpredictable vs. predictable predictable vs. silence
Sound F (1,56) = 1.2 η2 = .022 n.s. F (1,56) < 1 η2 = .008 n.s.

For the sound factor, only the a priori contrasts unpredictable vs. predictable and predictable vs. silence are tested.