Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 18;140(6):1729–1742. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx087

Table 5.

Statistical analyses

Incidence (chi-square test) Severity (t-test)
n χ2 df OR P t df d P
Comparison of the incidence and severity of phonological impairments in patients with damage to one of the TMS-guided regions relative to size-matched controls (see also Table 3)
TMS-guided SMG 8 versus 30 a a a 0.001 2.91 36 1.16 0.006
TMS-guided pOp 13 versus 30 6.93 1 6.67 0.008 2.56 41 0.85 0.014
Comparison of the incidence and severity of impairments on the phonological measure relative to that on each of the control tasks in patients with damage to one of the TMS-guided regions (see also Table 4)
TMS-guided SMG:
Phon versus Writ-HW 10 2.00b 1 0.157 2.45 9 0.77 0.037
Phon versus VW-P 10 4.00b 1 0.046 3.69 9 1.17 0.005
Phon versus AW-P 10 4.00b 1 0.046 2.25 9 0.71 0.051
Phon versus Sem-A 8 6.00b 1 0.014 3.19 7 1.13 0.015
TMS-guided pOp:
Phon versus Writ-HW 25 0.00b 1 1.000 4.73 24 0.95 <0.001
Phon versus VW-P 25 0.82b 1 0.366 2.95 24 0.59 0.007
Phon versus AW-P 25 8.33b 1 0.004 4.10 24 0.82 <0.001
Phon versus Sem-A 24 15.21b 1 <0.001 5.32 23 1.09 <0.001
Comparison of the within-subject difference between phonological and semantic scores in patients with damage to one of the TMS-guided regions relative to controls (see also Table 4)
TMS-guided SMG:
Phon − VW-P 10 versus 100 2.82 108 0.93 0.006
Phon − AW-P 10 versus 100 2.18 108 0.72 0.031
Phon − Sem-A 8 versus 97 3.29 103 1.21 0.001
TMS-guided pOp:
Phon − VW-P 25 versus 100 2.58 123 0.58 0.011
Phon − AW-P 25 versus 100 3.12 123 0.70 0.002
Phon − Sem-A 24 versus 97 5.72 119 1.30 <0.001

Phon = combined non-word reading and digit span; Writ-HW = writing heard words; VW-P = visual word-to-picture matching; AW-P = auditory word-to-picture matching; Sem-A = semantic associations; d = Cohen’s d.

aFisher’s exact test. bMcNemar’s chi-square test.