Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Res. 2021 Jul 8;202:111651. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111651

Table 2.

Comparisons of mean Go/No-Go outcome score between Class 1 (high performance) and Class 2 (low performance)

Mean (SD)

False Alarm Rate (FAR) Class 1 Class 2 p-value
Happy 0.18 (0.12) 0.29 (0.18) < 1.0 x 10−5
Neutral 0.19 (0.11) 0.32 (0.18) < 1.0 x 10−5
Letter 0.21 (0.13) 0.28 (0.15) 1.3 x 10−4
Hit Rate (HR)
Happy 0.95 (0.04) 0.86 (0.12) < 1.0 x 10−5
Neutral 0.94 (0.05) 0.85 (0.12) < 1.0 x 10−5
Letter 0.97 (0.02) 0.91 (0.07) < 1.0 x 10−5
Mean Reaction Time, ms
Happy 588.29 (71.99) 562.12 (80.19) 0.027
Neutral 603.43 (70.17) 564.70 (84.88) 7.7 x 10−5
Letter 500.02 (69.30) 502.70 (75.37) 0.97
Standard Deviation of Reaction Time, ms
Happy 139.75 (22.83) 203.09 (60.41) < 1.0 x 10−5
Neutral 140.22 (21.66) 211.70 (63.06) < 1.0 x −5
Letter 127.59 (24.68) 178.05 (50.61) < 1.0 x 10−5

Performance parameters of Class 1 (high performance; n = 220) and Class 2 (low performance; n = 100) participants on three Go/No-Go tasks: Happy, Neutral, and Letter, p values reflect Wilcoxon t-test of Class 1 vs Class 2 sample means.