Table 2.
Results of ANOVAs assessing the hidden zero effect relative to two different control conditions (Sham and Pre-Experiment).
| EFFECT | DF | F | Η | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | hemisphere | 1, 25 | 0.22 | 0.005 | 0.64 |
| hidden zero (hz) | 1, 25 | 18.8 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
| hemi: hz | 1, 25 | 1.46 | 0.005 | 0.24 | |
| tms | 1, 25 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.84 | |
| hemi:tms | 1, 25 | 0.97 | 0.01 | 0.33 | |
| hz:tms | 1, 25 | 5.13 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |
| hemi: hz:tms | 1, 25 | 2.13 | 0.007 | 0.16 | |
| Pre-Experiment | hemisphere | 1, 25 | 0.12 | 0.003 | 0.73 |
| hz | 1, 25 | 7 | 0.03 | 0.01 | |
| hemi: hz | 1, 25 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.9 | |
| tms | 1, 25 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.9 | |
| hemi:tms | 1, 25 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.79 | |
| hz:tms | 1, 25 | 0.77 | 0.003 | 0.39 | |
| hemi: hz:tms | 1, 25 | 0 | 0 | 0.98 |
Both ANOVAs show significant effects of hidden zero framing. However, only the pre-experiment assessment of baseline showed a significant effect of TMS on the hidden zero effect. H refers to generalized eta squared.