Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug 3;12:165. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00165

Table 2.

Comparisons of MADER for different experimental conditions using independent samples t-tests.

Tasks MADER (SD) controls MADER (SD) patients T-value df p-value Cohen’s d
Position Marking
Overall 4.1 (1.5) 5.1 (1.9) -2.686 80 0.009 0.58
Familiar
Horizontal 3.7 (1.7) 4.2 (2.1) -1.217 81 0.227 0.26
Vertical 3.7 (1.8) 4.4 (2.0) -1.852 81 0.068 0.37
Unfamiliar
Horizontal 3.8 (2.0) 5.3 (2.4) -3.288 81 0.001 0.60
Vertical 5.0 (2.6) 6.1 (2.9) -1.782 80 0.079 0.40
Number Naming
Overall 3.4 (0.9) 4.4 (1.4) -4.075 68.205 <0.001 0.85
Familiar
Horizontal 3.1 (1.3) 4.1 (2.4) -2.298 81 0.024 0.52
Vertical 3.5 (1.4) 4.2 (1.6) -1.987 81 0.05 0.47
Unfamiliar
Horizontal 3.5 (1.3) 4.6 (2.1) -2.813 81 0.006 0.63
Vertical 3.4 (1.2) 5.0 (1.9) -4.392 67.147 <0.001 1.00

On the left, the Mean Absolute Deviation from the Expected Respective Response (MADER) is shown for each subtask of number line experiments for controls and pain patients. On the right, results of statistical analyses for differences between group MADERs for each experimental condition are displayed. SD, standard deviation; p < 0.005 (Bonferroni-corrected alpha-level).