TABLE 3.

Estimated marginal mean contrasts for logRTs for TMS condition (effective vs. sham), TMS site (pIFG vs. aIFG), and task (grammatical vs. lexical), using mvt adjustment.

Contrast	Δ logRT	SE	df	t	p
Effective, gram, pIFG – sham, gram, pIFG	0.03	0.01	4630	2.4	0.147
Effective, gram, pIFG – effective, lex, pIFG	0.03	0.01	4630	4.1	< 0.001
Effective, gram, pIFG – effective, gram, aIFG	0.08	0.01	4633	7.4	< 0.001
Effective, lex, pIFG – sham, lex, pIFG	0.10	0.01	4629	8.9	< 0.001
Effective, lex, pIFG – effective, lex, aIFG	0.06	0.06	4630	5.0	< 0.001
Effective, gram, aIFG – sham, gram, aIFG	0.14	0.01	4630	13.4	< 0.001
Effective, gram, aIFG – effective, lex, aIFG	0.05	0.01	4630	8.9	< 0.001
Effective, lex, aIFG – sham, lex, aIFG	0.13	0.01	4630	12.4	< 0.001