Table 2.
Statistical analysis of the first experiment. The results of the GLMMs are shown for both accuracy and response time data of the first experiment. Additionally, the response times were divided according to the congruency of the previous trial in additional model runs. For every factor, the mean values and standard errors of each factor level are reported. The results of the statistical testing of the difference between these mean values are also reported as Z and p values.
| Estimate (mean ± SE) | Z value | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | |||
| CCT | Δ1.5 | 2.801 | <0.01 |
| Congruent | 95.3 ± 1.0 | ||
| Incongruent | 93.8 ± 0.7 | ||
| CPT | Δ0.6 | 1.491 | 0.13 |
| Congruent | 93.4 ± 1.2 | ||
| Incongruent | 94.0 ± 1.0 | ||
| Stimulation | Δ0.9 | 1.875 | 0.06 |
| Sham | 94.2 ± 1.1 | ||
| 6 Hz | 93.3 ± 1.1 | ||
| Response times (ms) | |||
| CCT (Stroop effect) | Δ39.9 | 4.37 | <0.001 |
| Congruent | 600 ± 16.1 | ||
| Incongruent | 639.9 ± 17.6 | ||
| CPT | Δ3.2 | 1.06 | 0.28 |
| Congruent | 624.3 ± 22.9 | ||
| Incongruent | 627.5 ± 22.9 | ||
| Stimulation | Δ6 | 0.49 | 0.61 |
| Sham | 628.9 ± 22.7 | ||
| 6 Hz | 622.9 ± 24.4 | ||
| CCT x stimulation | Δ12.4 | 1.847 | 0.06 |
| Stroop effect (sham) | 46.2 ± 7.1 | ||
| Stroop effect (6 Hz) | 33.8 ± 3.7 | ||
| CCT x CPT | Δ17 | 3.026 | <0.01 |
| Stroop effect (CPT: congruent) | 47.9 ± 7.1 | ||
| Stroop effect (CPT: incongruent) | 30.9 ± 4.1 | ||
| CCT x CPT x stimulation | Δ23.1 | 1.828 | 0.06 |
| Response times (ms)–data divided according to congruency of previous trial (CPT) | |||
| CPT = congruent | |||
| CCT x stimulation | Δ24.4 | 2.87 | <0.01 |
| Stroop effect (sham) | 60.2 ± 11.1 | ||
| Stroop effect (6 Hz) | 35.8 ± 6.1 | ||
| CPT = incongruent | |||
| CCT x stimulation | Δ1.3 | 0.01 | 0.98 |
| Stroop effect (sham) | 30.9 ± 5.9 | ||
| Stroop effect (6 Hz) | 32.2 ± 6.3 |
SE: standard error.