Table 2.
Results and comparison of saccadic performance among subgroups.
| Healthy controls (n = 23) | Outpatients (n = 17) | Inpatients (n = 38) | p value | H/I | H/O | I/O | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saccadic tasks parameters | |||||||
| Pro‐saccade | |||||||
| Anticipatory error | 11.6 ± 9.7 | 26.9 ± 21.5 | 26.6 ± 24.8 | 0.013 | 0.024 | 0.040 | 0.989 |
| Reaction time | 283.8 ± 92.1 | 261.7 ± 43.9 | 302.4 ± 83.5 | 0.226 | – | – | – |
| Anti‐saccade | |||||||
| Directional error | 8.9 ± 6.1 | 13.4 ± 12.9 | 24.1 ± 17.5 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.999 | 0.026 |
| Saccade not performed | 0.8 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 2.4 | 2.8 ± 4.6 | 0.084 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time – Wrong | 194.1 ± 69.1 | 211.7 ± 85.2 | 210.0 ± 50.0 | 0.293 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time – Correct | 275.6 ± 80.4 | 254.3 ± 18.7 | 304.9 ± 68.6 | 0.004 | 0.030 | 0.825 | 0.005 |
| Anti‐saccade Dual task | |||||||
| Directional error | 21.4 ± 9.7 | 23.1 ± 18.6 | 38.9 ± 23.1 | 0.006 | 0.033 | 1.000 | 0.022 |
| Saccade not performed | 1.9 ± 2.1 | 0.9 ± 2.1 | 5.8 ± 12.9 | 0.429 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time – Wrong | 243.7 ± 93.2 | 215.1 ± 64.2 | 239.8 ± 57.4 | 0.220 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time – Correct | 342.6 ± 107.6 | 297.2 ± 65.4 | 384.0 ± 110.7 | 0.014 | 0.289 | 0.721 | 0.014 |
| Dual‐task cost | |||||||
| Directional error | 12.5 ± 10.1 | 9.6 ± 10.3 | 14.9 ± 15.7 | 0.513 | – | – | – |
| Saccade not performed | 1.1 ± 1.9 | 1.8 ± 4.1 | 8.7 ± 12.7 | 0.429 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time – Correct | 66.5 ± 53.5 | 42.8 ± 57.2 | 79.1 ± 79.5 | 0.138 | – | – | – |
Significant p values <0.05 are reported in bold. Samples were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. We report the adjusted significance using Bonferroni correction. Errors are expressed as percentage, reaction time in milliseconds. Dual‐task cost is expressed as percentage and calculated with the formula: ((dual‐task single task)/single task × 100). H, healthy controls; I, inpatients; O, outpatients. Significant p values (<0.05) are written in bold.