. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Psychophysiology. 2022 Feb 12;59(7):e14013. doi: 10.1111/psyp.14013

Table 6:

PEP analysis in the study stages of baseline and speech task for PTSD and non-PTSD participants. PEP values, in ms, were computed using the TEA and CEA. For both groups, PEP for the speech task was found to be lower than that of the baseline stage for both algorithms (p < 0.05) with larger effect size and higher AUC in TEA than in CEA. For difference in baseline and speech task, a higher PEP mean difference was observed, but it was not statistically significant in the PTSD (p = 0.3) and non-PTSD (p = 0.2) subgroups.

Algorithm	Baseline	Speech task	p value (p<0.05)	Test statistics	Cohen’s d effect size	AUC	Mean difference / Confidence interval
Algorithm	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p value (p<0.05)	Test statistics	Cohen’s d effect size	AUC	Mean difference / Confidence interval
PTSD (n =22)
TEA	92.8 (18.8)	80.9 (22.3)	0.001	3.3	0.68	0.66	11.8 [4.2, 19.5]
CEA	91.3 (19.9)	82.8 (23.4)	0.046	2.0	0.41	0.57	8.4 [−0.8, 17.6]
Non-PTSD (n =22)
TEA	93.8 (11.2)	85.6 (11.2)	<0.001	4.9	1.0	0.68	8.2 [4.7, 11.7]
CEA	93.4 (11.9)	88.0 (10.6)	0.002	3.6	0.77	0.59	5.3[2.3, 8.4]