Table 2.

Mixed effects logistic regression model of the effect of instruction (CD vs. EF) and tDCS on training phase performance.

Predictor	β	ORa	z	p
Intercept	−0.27	0.76	−2.86	0.004
Anodal vs. Sham	−0.01	0.99	−0.04	0.97
Cathodal vs. Sham	0.09	1.10	0.40	0.69
Trial Type	0.93	2.53	6.96	<0.0001
Block 2 vs. 1	0.32	1.38	2.81	0.005
Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	0.24	1.27	2.35	0.02
Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	0.31	1.36	3.13	0.002
Anodal vs. Sham x Trial Type	−0.05	0.95	−0.15	0.88
Cathodal vs. Sham x Trial Type	−0.17	0.84	−0.54	0.59
Anodal vs. Sham x Block 2 vs. 1	−0.45	0.64	−1.59	0.11
Anodal vs. Sham x Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	0.18	1.20	0.73	0.47
Anodal vs. Sham x Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	0.08	1.07	0.31	0.75
Cathodal vs. Sham x Block 2 vs. 1	−0.19	0.83	−0.69	0.49
Cathodal vs. Sham x Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	−0.10	0.91	−0.41	0.68
Cathodal vs. Sham x Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	−0.17	0.85	−0.70	0.48
Trial Type x Block 2 vs. 1	−0.22	0.80	−1.58	0.11
Trial Type x Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	−0.03	0.97	−0.22	0.82
Trial Type x Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	−0.16	0.85	−1.11	0.27
Anodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 2 vs. 1	0.76	2.15	2.22	0.03
Anodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	−0.25	0.78	−0.75	0.46
Anodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	0.06	1.06	0.17	0.86
Cathodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 2 vs. 1	0.47	1.60	1.41	0.16
Cathodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 3 vs. (1, 2)	−0.12	0.89	−0.37	0.71
Cathodal vs. Sham x Trial Type x Block 4 vs. (1, 2, 3)	0.50	1.65	1.46	0.14

Boldfaced text indicates p < 0.05.

^aOR: Odds Ratio.