Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 7;7:10821. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10832-x

Table 1.

Scores and statistical analyses of the behavioral performance during the Go/NoGo tasks.

Mean (SD) Immediate effect Practice effects
SI II SI vs II (t30; p-value; Cohen’s d) Group (SI; II) (F1,30; p-value; ηp2) Session (BEG; END) (F1,30; p-value; ηp2) Group x Session (F1,30; p-value; ηp2)
Response Time (ms) BEG 337.1 (29.9) 357.5 (30.6) −1.90; 0.068; 0.70 7.65; 0.010; 0.20 10.83; 0.003; 0.27 3.75; 0.062; 0.11
END 308.9 (36.1) 350.1 (41.5)
False Alarms Rate (%) BEG 23.1 (11.3) 15.8 (6.8) 2.26; 0.031; 0.82 5.39; 0.027; 0.15 2.83; 0.103; 0.09 1.02; 0.321; 0.03
END 28.4 (19.4) 17.1 (10.6)
D prime BEG 2.8 (0.6) 3.0 (0.5) −1.37; 0.181; 0.50 3.16; 0.086; 0.10 3.95; 0.056; 0.12 0.90; 0.351; 0.03
END 2.4 (0.9) 2.9 (0.8)
C Criterion BEG −0.6 (0.2) −0.5 (0.1) −2.25; 0.032; 0.82 5.32; 0.028; 0.15 1.46; 0.237; 0.05 0.22; 0.646; 0.01
END −0.6 (0.3) −0.4 (0.3)

Note. SI = control group receiving standard instructions and II = implementation intentions group. We tested for normality of all variables using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which indicated that the data were normally distributed in both groups and for all conditions.