Table 3.
Statistical analysis of Experiment 2. The results of the GLMMs are shown for both accuracy and response time data of the second experiment. For every factor, the mean values and standard errors of each factor level are reported. The results of the statistical testing of the difference between these mean values are also reported as Z and p values.
| Estimate (mean ± SE) | Z value | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | |||
| CCT | Δ0.9 | 2.952 | <0.01 |
| Congruent | 98.0 ± 0.5 | ||
| Incongruent | 97.1 ± 0.6 | ||
| CPT | Δ0.1 | 0.441 | 0.65 |
| Congruent | 98.6 ± 0.6 | ||
| Incongruent | 98.7 ± 0.4 | ||
| Stimulation | |||
| Sham | 98.5 ± 0.3 | ||
| 6 Hz (vs. sham) | Δ0.2 | 0.579 | 0.56 |
| 6 Hz | 98.3 ± 0.5 | ||
| 9.7 Hz (vs. sham) | Δ0 | 0.43 | 0.66 |
| 9.7 Hz | 98.5 ± 0.4 | ||
| Response times (ms) | |||
| CCT (Stroop effect) | Δ31.3 | 3.12 | 0.001 |
| Congruent | 561.1 ± 15.0 | ||
| Incongruent | 592.4 ± 18.4 | ||
| CPT | Δ7.2 | 2.28 | 0.02 |
| Congruent | 573.1 ± 16.5 | ||
| Incongruent | 580.3 ± 16.6 | ||
| Stimulation | |||
| Sham | 585.1 ± 24.1 | ||
| 6 Hz (vs. sham) | Δ4.6 | 0.78 | 0.43 |
| 6 Hz | 580.5 ± 21.8 | ||
| 9.7 Hz (vs. sham) | Δ2 | 0.06 | 0.95 |
| 9.7 Hz | 584.9 ± 27.5 | ||
| CCT x stimulation | |||
| Stroop effect (sham) | 32.9 ± 7.2 | ||
| Stroop effect (6 Hz vs. sham) | Δ6.9 | 2.11 | 0.03 |
| Stroop effect (6 Hz) | 26.0 ± 5.0 | ||
| Stroop effect (9.7 Hz vs. sham) | Δ2.1 | 1.44 | 0.14 |
| Stroop effect (9.7 Hz) | 35.0 ± 8.4 | ||
| CCT x CPT | Δ11.8 | 3.48 | <0.001 |
| Stroop effect (CPT: congruent) | 36.7 ± 7.6 | ||
| Stroop effect (CPT: incongruent) | 24.9 ± 5.0 | ||
| CCT x CPT x stimulation | |||
| CCT x CPT (6 Hz vs. sham) | Δ0.7 | 0.35 | 0.72 |
| CCT x CPT (9.7 Hz vs. sham) | Δ1.8 | 0.87 | 0.38 |
SE: standard error.