Table 2.

Prediction of encoding recall and recognition of verbal material by encoding ERP responses

	β	Std. error	t	95% CI	p-Value	η2
Model 1: Encoding
Gender	−3.50	2.39	−1.46	[−8.29, 1.29]	.15	0.04
Group
SZ-REL	−0.64	2.75	−0.23	[−6.15, 4.87]	.82	0.25
SZ	−10.87	2.56	−4.24	[−16.00, −5.74]	<.025*
LPC anterior lateralization	0.56	0.28	2.03	[0.01, 1.12]	<.05*	0.07
Model 2: Recall
Group
SZ-REL	−3.28	1.96	−1.67	[−7.19, 0.64]	.09	0.38
SZ	−10.54	1.74	−6.06	[−14.02, −7.06]	<.017*
N1	−1.30	0.41	−3.20	[−2.11, −0.48]	<.025*	0.15
LPC parietal	0.34	0.36	0.94	[−0.38, 1.06]	.34	0.01
LPC anterior lateralization	0.39	0.25	1.60	[−0.10, 0.89]	.12	0.04
N1 × Group
SZ-REL	0.42	0.81	0.52	[−1.19, 2.03]	.61	0.14
SZ	1.82	0.59	3.06	[0.63, 3.00]	<.05*
LPC parietal × gender	1.05	0.54	1.93	[−0.04, 2.13]	.06	0.06
LPC anterior × gender	−0.46	0.30	−1.51	[−1.07, 0.14]	.13	0.04
Model 3: Recognition without recall
N1	1.60	0.56	2.86	[0.48, 2.71]	<.05*	0.11
LPC anterior lateralization	−0.75	0.40	−1.87	[−1.54, 0.05]	.06	0.05

Note: Three multiple linear regressions modeled the relationship between ERP response and performance in the verbal memory task. Coefficients, standard error, t-values 95% confidence intervals, significance levels, and partial eta-squared are reported. For categorical predictors, partial eta-squared was calculated for the overall variable rather though beta coefficients are reported for the individual dummy codes. Variables are centered so that beta coefficients reflect units from the predictor mean.

*Significant after Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.