Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Methods. 2020 Oct;52(5):1991–2007. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01368-6

Table 1.

Factorial model comparison. All models tested are shown with their parameters. Rows are models; columns including gray shading are factors. Gray shading indicates parameters were fit, with number of parameters in parentheses. No shading indicates parameters were fixed, with the fixed value given. Model code: L = latency, Y = y-int, T = tmax, 0 = none; task component: B = boxcar, L = linear, 0 = none.

Model # Model code Event-related amplitude Latency y-int tmax Task-related # params Δ BIC
1 LYT-B Parameter (4) Parameter (4) Parameter (1) Parameter (1) Boxcar (1) 11 -
2 LYT-L Linear (1) 11 -49
3 LYT-0 None 10 3328
4 LY-B 930 ms Boxcar 10 7939
5 LY-L Linear 10 7006
6 LY-0 None 9 19196
7 LT-B 0% Parameter Boxcar 10 8840
8 LT-L Linear 10 10946
9 LT-0 None 9 12344
10 L-B 930 ms Boxcar 9 14069
11 L-L Linear 9 14609
12 L-0 None 8 25178
13 YT-B 0 ms Parameter Parameter Boxcar 7 14688
14 YT-L Linear 7 20564
15 YT-0 None 6 20296
16 Y-B 930 ms Boxcar 6 27319
17 Y-L Linear 6 26392
18 Y-0 None 5 40876
19 T-B 0% Parameter Boxcar 6 22556
20 T-L Linear 6 25720
21 T-0 None 5 27568
22 0-B 930 ms Boxcar 5 30585
23 0-L Linear 5 31841
24 0–0 None 4 45679