. 2020 Jun 22;30(11):5731–5749. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhaa147

Table 6.

Paired t-tests of preference strength

Study	t-test	t(df = 48)	P	Cohen’s d
Strength of preference to consume food items as function of healthiness
Behavioral study	Decrease_{healthy_yes} > Look_{healthy_yes}	4.10	<0.001	0.59
	Decrease_{healthy_no} > Look_{healthy_no}	1.26	0.21	0.18
	Decrease_{unhealthy_yes} > Look_{unhealthy_yes}	0.15	0.88	0.02
	Decrease_{unhealthy_no} > Look_{healthy_no}	1.32	0.19	0.19
		t(df = 34)	P	Cohen’s d
fMRI study	Decrease_{healthy_yes} > Look_{healthy_yes}	3.80	<0.001	0.64
	Decrease_{healthy_no} > Look_{healthy_no}	1.10	0.27	0.19
	Decrease_{unhealthy_yes} > Look_{unhealthy_yes}	1.60	0.11	0.28
	Decrease_{unhealthy_no} > Look_{healthy_no}	−0.09	0.92	−0.02
Strength of preference to consume food items as function of palatability
		t(df = 48)	P	Cohen’s d
Behavioral study	Decrease_{tasty_yes} > Look_{tasty_yes}	2.93	0.005	0.42
	Decrease_{tasty_no} > Look_{tasty_no}	1.87	0.06	0.27
	Decrease_{untasty_yes} > Look_{untasty_yes}	1.13	0.27	0.24
	Decrease_{untasty_no} > Look_{tasty_no}	−4.44	<0.001	−0.66
		t(df = 34)	p	Cohen’s d
fMRI study	Decrease_{tasty_yes} > Look_{tasty_yes}	3.43	0.002	0.58
	Decrease_{tasty_no} > Look_{tasty_no}	2.00	0.05	0.34
	Decrease_{untasty_yes} > Look_{untasty_yes}	1.46	0.16	0.38
	Decrease_{untasty_no} > Look_{tasty_no}	−1.63	0.11	−0.28

Note: Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons. Significant results are indicated in bold. Df = degrees of freedom.