Table 2.
High-motion and low-motion groups were defined independently in the rest and task cohortsa
| Rest cohort (n = 72) |
Task cohort(n = 83) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Methylphenidate | Control | Total | Methylphenidate | Control | |
| High-motion group (n) | 16 | 7 | 9 | 19 | 4 | 15 |
| Low-motion group (n) | 56 | 9 | 47 | 64 | 15 | 49 |
| High-attention network strength | t(36.52) = 0.09, p = 0.93 | t(6.67) = 0.05, p = 0.96 | ||||
| Low-attention network strength | t(35.92) = 0.43, p = 0.67 | t(24.08) = 0.65, p = 0.52 | ||||
aThe “High-attention network strength” and “Low-attention network strength” rows show the results of t test comparing strength in the high-motion and low-motion groups.