Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 May 21;97(3):285–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.05.008

Table 1. Means (±SD) of amplitude accuracy estimates (across all 67 sites) by generator model for each transformation and ANOVA F ratios.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Simulated sourcea Shallow Deep Shallow Shallow
CSD4 0.88 ±0.14 0.90 ±0.11 0.89 ±0.09 0.71 ±0.19
NR 0.82 ±0.17 0.80 ±0.16 0.82 ±0.17 0.78 ±0.15
AR 0.81 ±0.11 0.80 ±0.10 0.77 ±0.11 0.62 ±0.20
Effect b F p F p F p F p
Transformation c 18.0 <.0001 44.2 <.0001 20.3 <.0001 14.1 <.0001
Contrasts NR-CSD 34.4 <.0001 67.9 <.0001 24.3 <.0001 7.38 .008
AR-CSD 34.7 <.0001 153.4 <.0001 46.0 <.0001 8.07 .006
AR-NR 3.89 .053 23.9 <.0001
a

CSD4: current source density, m = 4; NR: nose reference; AR: average reference.

b

For all effects, df = 1, 66. Only F ratios with p < .10 are reported.

c

Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted df, 0.69097 ≤ ε ≤ 0.89650.