Table 1. Statistics Results.

Total number of (A) training, (B) feedback, and (C) open question sessions performed by each patient. The total number of sessions averaged and degrees of freedom used to perform t-tests between the true and false sentences’ ISI corresponding to (D) O₂Hb, (E) EEG, and (F) EOG signals. (G) ANOVA using support vector machine (SVM) classification accuracy (CA) of O₂Hb, EEG, and EOG signals. Post hoc t-test performed between (H) O₂Hb versus EEG, (I) O₂Hb versus EOG, and (J) EEG versus EOG classification accuracy. Note that each session contains 20 questions: 10 asking for a “yes” and 10 semantically equivalent questions asking for a “no” answer.

			Patient F	Patient G	Patient B
A) Training sessions			51	51	40
B) Feedback sessions			7	6	4
C) Open question sessions			2	2	2
D) O2Hb(“yes” question ISI versus “no” question ISI)	Number of sessions averaged		51	51	40
	Number of channels averaged		20	20	20
	t-value		4.01	3.96	3.67
	p-value		0.0001	0.0001	0.0004
E) EEG (“yes” question ISI versus “no” question ISI)	Number of sessions averaged		51	51	40
	Number of channels averaged		6	6	6
	t-value		0.97	0.61	0.83
	p-value		0.33	0.54	0.40
F) EOG(“yes” question ISI versus “no” question ISI)	Number of sessions averaged		51	51	40
	t-value	Horizontal EOG	.61	1.68	1.01
		Vertical EOG	.59	1.59	1.47
	p-value	Horizontal EOG	0.54	0.09	0.31
		Vertical EOG	0.55	0.11	0.14
G) ANOVA using classification accuracy of O2Hb, EEG, and EOG	F-value		20.12	7.69	16.5
	p-value		1.4E-08	0.0007	3.9E-08
	F-critical		3.05	3.05	3.06
H) O2Hb versus EEG classification accuracy	t-value		4.88	3.5	4.9
	p-value		1.8E-06	0.0003	2.07E-06
I) O2Hb versus EOG classification accuracy	t-value		5.69	4.5	5.05
	p-value		4.8E-08	2.5E-05	1.22E-06
J) EEG versus EOG classification accuracy	t-value		1.23	1.23	1.16
	p-value		0.109	0.109	0.12

Table 1 data is located at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.192386; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.192388; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.192390; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.192391.