Table 3.
Results of pairwise comparisons between mean weights in ROIs shown in Fig. 5C
Subject Group | Pairwise Comparison | ROI | t Value | Cohen’s d | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonmusicians | 1 | Anterior nonprimary | 15.91 | 5.03 | 6.75E-08 |
Primary | |||||
2 | Anterior nonprimary | 8.99 | 2.84 | 8.61E-06 | |
Lateral nonprimary | |||||
3 | Posterior nonprimary | 7.25 | 2.29 | 4.81E-05 | |
Primary | |||||
4 | Posterior nonprimary | 3.84 | 1.21 | 0.0040 | |
Lateral nonprimary | |||||
Musicians | 1 | Anterior nonprimary | 11.40 | 3.61 | 1.19E-06 |
Primary | |||||
2 | Anterior nonprimary | 7.66 | 2.42 | 3.14E-05 | |
Lateral nonprimary | |||||
3 | Posterior nonprimary | 4.49 | 1.42 | 0.0015 | |
Primary | |||||
4 | Posterior nonprimary | 2.72 | 0.86 | 0.0237 | |
Lateral nonprimary |
Component weights were first averaged over hemispheres, and significance between ROI pairs was evaluated using paired t tests (n = 10). Note that because of our prior hypotheses and the significance of the omnibus F test, we did not correct for multiple comparisons. ROI, region of interest.