Table 3.
Event-related potential (ERP) data for HC and aMCI subjects with different ApoE status.
| Items | Site | HC | aMCI | F-Values | p-Values | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ApoE ε4+ (N = 18) | ApoE ε4- (N = 26) | ApoE ε4+ (N = 12) | ApoE ε4- (N = 27) | ||||
| Novelty MMN latency | Fz | 206.67 (29.85) | 196.15 (31.04) | 190.00 (42.07) | 201.93 (28.25) | 0.81 | 0.490 |
| FCz | 215.78 (28.25) | 204.69 (33.13) | 198.50 (30.26) | 195.26 (41.31) | 1.34 | 0.266 | |
| Cz | 203.67 (35.83) | 203.08 (37.26) | 187.00 (31.75) | 173.48 (48.31)d | 3.11 | 0.031* | |
| Novelty MMN amplitude | Fz | -4.01 (2.20) | -3.27 (1.67) | -3.50 (1.71) | -3.24 (1.91) | 0.74 | 0.534 |
| FCz | -3.83 (2.17) | -2.90 (1.21) | -2.93 (1.84) | -2.80 (2.14) | 1.28 | 0.288 | |
| Cz | -2.50 (1.29) | -2.28 (1.24) | -2.65 (1.69) | -2.49 (2.60) | 0.12 | 0.945 | |
| Novelty P3 latency | Fz | 351.89 (27.84) | 368.23 (36.64) | 378.17 (30.40) | 371.19 (34.01) | 1.85 | 0.144 |
| FCz | 365.78 (35.05) | 375.23 (37.37) | 368.83 (42.24) | 359.70 (43.62) | 0.69 | 0.562 | |
| Cz | 379.67 (47.44) | 395.46 (35.31) | 384.50 (50.53) | 388.44 (49.21) | 0.47 | 0.706 | |
| Novelty P3 amplitude | Fz | 3.99 (2.00) | 4.99 (2.84) | 4.28 (3.24) | 4.31 (2.58) | 0.58 | 0.629 |
| FCz | 3.11 (1.92) | 4.93 (2.62) | 3.02 (2.39) | 4.33 (3.21) | 2.38 | 0.076 | |
| Cz | 2.40 (1.71) | 3.70 (1.91) | 2.71 (2.09) | 3.32 (2.98) | 1.32 | 0.275 | |
aMCI, amnestic mild cognitive impairment; HCs, healthy controls. ∗Significant differences were found among the four groups. p-Values were obtained by ANOVA analysis. dPost hoc analysis (LSD test) further revealed the source of ANOVA difference (d, aMCI ApoE ε4- vs. HC ApoE ε4-).