Table 4.

Results from Analyses Comparing PVT Outcomes in Disruptive and Enhancing Conditions Compared to Sham

	Disruptive vs Sham			Enhancing vs Sham
	Estimate of Effect (SEM)	t(53)	p	Estimate of Effect (SEM)	t(53)	p
Median RTa	<0.001 (0.01)	0.19	.851	<0.001 (0.01)	−0.65	.521
	Estimate of Effect (SEM)	z	p	Estimate of Effect (SEM)	z	p
Lapse countb,c	0.43 (0.12)	3.68	<.001	0.263 (0.29)	0.91	.363
False start countb,d	−0.151 (0.22)	−0.70	.482	−0.162 (0.34)	−0.47	.636

Notes: Differences in performance on psychomotor vigilance testing (PVT) the day after study intervention nights (Disruptive or Enhancing) and Sham. All models include order (of condition presentation), condition*order, time of task administration, and condition*time. ^aAnalyzed using linear mixed model; includes RT ≥ 500 ms (lapses) but not RT < 100 ms (false starts). ^bAnalyzed using generalized linear model with Poisson distribution. ^cReaction time ≥ 500 ms. ^dReaction time < 100 ms. Differences in performance on psychomotor vigilance testing (PVT) the day after study intervention nights (Disruptive or Enhancing) and Sham. Analyses interpreted as statistically significant are indicated with p-values in bold (p < .05).

Abbreviations: RT, reaction time; SEM, standard error of the mean.