TABLE 1.

The repeated measures analysis.

Effect	Method	Value	F	p
Picking time	Pillai’s trace	0.019	0.888	0.449
	Wilks’ lambda	0.981	0.888	0.449
	Hotelling’s trace	0.019	0.888	0.449
	Roy’s largest root	0.019	0.888	0.449
Picking time × target clicking method	Pillai’s trace	0.013	0.610	0.609
	Wilks’ lambda	0.987	0.610	0.609
	Hotelling’s trace	0.013	0.610	0.609
	Roy’s largest root	0.013	0.610	0.609
Picking time × the position of target	Pillai’s trace	0.078	0.934	0.513
	Wilks’ lambda	0.923	0.931	0.516
	Hotelling’s trace	0.081	0.927	0.520
	Roy’s largest root	0.054	1.893	0.115
Dragging time	Pillai’s trace	0.010	0.445	0.721
	Wilks’ lambda	0.990	0.445	0.721
	Hotelling’s trace	0.010	0.445	0.721
	Roy’s largest root	0.010	0.445	0.721
Dragging time × target clicking method	Pillai’s trace	0.002	0.086	0.968
	Wilks’ lambda	0.998	0.086	0.968
	Hotelling’s trace	0.002	0.086	0.968
	Roy’s largest root	0.002	0.086	0.968
Dragging time × the position of target	Pillai’s trace	0.063	0.746	0.706
	Wilks’ lambda	0.938	0.745	0.707
	Hotelling’s trace	0.065	0.744	0.708
	Roy’s largest root	0.053	1.839	0.125
Dragging numbers	Pillai’s trace	0.010	0.479	0.697
	Wilks’ lambda	0.990	0.479	0.697
	Hotelling’s trace	0.010	0.479	0.697
	Roy’s largest root	0.010	0.479	0.697
Dragging numbers × target clicking method	Pillai’s trace	0.007	0.335	0.800
	Wilks’ lambda	0.993	0.335	0.800
	Hotelling’s trace	0.007	0.335	0.800
	Roy’s largest root	0.007	0.335	0.800
Dragging numbers × the position of target	Pillai’s trace	0.069	0.821	0.628
	Wilks’ lambda	0.933	0.815	0.635
	Hotelling’s trace	0.071	0.808	0.642
	Roy’s largest root	0.041	1.418	0.231

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. Within subjects design: Dragging numbers.