Table A8.
Random Effects | Groups | Name | Variance | Std.Dev. | ||
Item | (Intercept) | 0.15 | 0.38 | |||
Participant | Control-Duration | 0.91 | 0.96 | |||
participant.1 | Duration-Intensity | 0.07 | 0.26 | |||
participant.2 | (Intercept) | 0.01 | 0.08 | |||
Fixed Effects | β | SE | z | p | Sign. | Corr. p |
(Intercept) | 0.36 | 0.07 | 4.93 | <0.001 | *** | <0.001 |
Duration-Intensity | −1.13 | 0.2 | −5.77 | <0.001 | *** | <0.001 |
Control-Duration | 0.89 | 0.15 | 5.98 | <0.001 | *** | <0.001 |
Intensity*Group | 0.44 | 0.28 | 1.58 | 0.12 | ||
Duration*Group | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.61 | 0.54 | ||
Control*Group | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.07 | 0.94 | ||
Intensity* Musical rhythm perception ability | 0 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.99 | ||
Duration* Musical rhythm perception ability | −0.29 | 0.1 | −2.80 | 0.005 | ** | 0.02 |
Control* Musical rhythm perception ability | 0.49 | 0.16 | 2.97 | 0.003 | ** | 0.01 |
Intensity*Cognitive ability | 0.31 | 0.15 | 2.03 | 0.04 | * | 0.16 |
Duration*Cognitive ability | −0.12 | 0.11 | −1.12 | 0.26 | ||
Control*Cognitive ability | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.64 | 0.52 | ||
Intensity*Group* Musical rhythm perception ability | −0.37 | 0.3 | −1.22 | 0.22 | ||
Duration*Group* Musical rhythm perception ability | −0.41 | 0.2 | −2.01 | 0.04 | * | 0.16 |
Control*Group* Musical rhythm perception ability | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.84 | ||
Intensity*Group*Cognitive ability | 0.52 | 0.31 | 1.68 | 0.09 | ||
Duration*Group*Cognitive ability | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.86 | ||
Control*Group*Cognitive ability | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.73 | 0.47 1 |
1Table A8 reports the results of Model 4, which extended Model 3 by adding cognitive ability as control variable (Formula: Response ~ Condition/(Group*Musical rhythm perception ability + Cognitive ability) + (1 + Duration-Intensity + Control-Duration || participant) + (1 | item). Level of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Not different from Model 3, the results of Model 4 suggest highly significant effects of musical rhythm perception ability on the duration (p = 0.02) and the control condition (p = 0.008). Intensity was, just as in Model 3, not modulated by musical rhythm perception ability, and there were, again, no interactions of any condition and group, and neither any three-way interactions of any condition with group and musical rhythm perception ability. Altogether, there were no significant effects of cognitive ability. Model comparisons revealed that Model 4 was not better than Model 3 (χ2 = 8.05, p < 0.23).