Table 2.
Effect Sizes of Explicit Timing Abilities in SZ and HC
| Study Name | Sample Size | Outcome | Method of Assessment | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bolbecker et al63 | 66 patients 73 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −0.5712; 95% CI = −0.903, −0.234; v = 0.029 |
| Bourdet et al64 | 22 patients 14 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −1.4462; 95% CI = −2.168, −0.724; v = 0.136 |
| Broadhurst72 | 24 patients 24 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.9278; 95% CI = −1.507, −0.347; v = 0.088 |
| Carlson et al73 | 30 patients 20 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = 1.087; 95% CI = 0.498, 1.676; v = 0.09 |
| Carlson et al73 | 30 patients 20 controls | Controlled | Motor | d = −1.2; 95% CI = −1.797, −0.603; v = 0.093 |
| Carroll et al19 | 28 patients 31 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −0.5343; 95% CI = −1.043, −0.025; v = 0.067 |
| Carroll et al19 | 28 patients 31 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.9326; 95% CI = −1.459, −0.405; v = 0.072 |
| Carroll et al65 | 32 patients 31 controls | Automatic | Motor | d = −0.7729; 95% CI = −1.278, −0.266; v = 0.067 |
| Delevoye-Turrell et al66 | 24 patients 22 controls | Automatic | Motor | d = −0.8966; 95% CI = −1.469, −0.306; v = 0.091 |
| Davalos et al67 | 10 patients 10 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −1.393; 95% CI = −2.305, −0.481; v = 0.216 |
| Davalos et al17 | 15 patients 16 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −1.6272; 95% CI = −2.406, −0.848; v = 0.158 |
| Davalos et al68 | 15 patients 30 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −1.1168; 95% CI = −1.759, −0.473; v = 0.108 |
| Davalos et al69 | 20 patients 20 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −1.1276; 95% CI = −1.773, −0.481; v = 0.109 |
| Densen et al74 | 10 patients 10 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.99; 95% CI = −1.856, −0.124; v = 0.195 |
| Elvevåg et al16 | 19 patients 23 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = 0.537; 95% CI = 0.018, 1.056; v = 0.070 |
| Johnson et al13 | 40 patients 40 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.845; 95% CI = −1.295, −0.395; v = 0.053 |
| Lee et al80 | 38 patients 38 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −0.6603; 95% CI = −1.114, −0.206; v = 0.054 |
| Lee et al80 | 38 patients 38 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.7327; 95% CI = −1.189, −0.275; v = 0.054 |
| Lhamon and Goldstone14 | 37 patients 41 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.458 95% CI = −0.901, −0.015 v = 0.051 |
| Orme et al75 | 80 patients 117 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.2989; 95% CI = −0.595, −0.001; v = 0.023 |
| Papageorgiou et al76 | 60 patients 35 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.5175; 95% CI = −0.905, −0.129; v = 0.039 |
| Papageorgiou et al76 | 60 patients 35 controls | Controlled | Motor | d = −0.3911; 95% CI = −0.776, −0.006; v = 0.039 |
| Rutschmann77 | 7 patients 9 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −0.6262; 95% CI = −1.550, 0.298; v = 0.222 |
| Rutschmann77 | 7 patients 9 controls | Controlled | Motor | d = 0.236; 95% CI = −0.670, 1.142; v = 0.213 |
| Todd et al70 | 17 patients 20 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −0.6746; 95% CI = −1.316, −0.032; v = 0.107 |
| Todd et al71 | 20 patients 22 controls | Automatic | Perceptual | d = −0.918; 95% CI = −1.535, −0.301; v = 0.099 |
| Tracy et al78 | 9 patients 43 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = −1.1248; 95% CI = −1.856, −0.392; v = 0.140 |
| Turgeon et al81 | 15 patients 15 controls | Automatic | Motor | d = 0.0365; 95% CI = −0.649, 0.721; v = 0.122 |
| Turgeon et al81 | 15 patients 15 controls | Controlled | Motor | d = 0.0365; 95% CI = −0.649, 0.721; v = 0.122 |
| van der Veen et al79 | 12 patients 21 controls | Controlled | Perceptual | d = 0.3088; 95% CI = −0.377, 0.993; v = 0.122 |
Note: d, standardized mean difference; CI, confidence interval; v, variance.