Event related fields evoked by vocal response inhibition: a comparison of younger and older adults
Leidy J Castro-Menesesa,b *, 1, Blake W. Johnsona and Paul F. Sowmana, b,1
a
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (CCD), Department of
Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, 2109 NSW, Australia
b
Perception in Action Research Centre (PARC), Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University,
2109 NSW, Australia.
Table of Contents
1.
Amplitude analyses: main effect of condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA) ................................ 2
2.
Amplitude analyses: interaction of group by condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA) ................ 3
3.
Amplitude analyses: main effect of group .............................................................................................. 4
3.1. Independent sample t-test for each condition across groups ................................................................ 4
4.
Latency analyses: 2 x 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA ............................................................................................ 6
Table of Tables
Table 1: Amplitude analyses: main effect of condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA) .............................. 2
Table 2: Amplitude analyses: interaction of group by condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA) ................ 3
Table 3: Amplitude analyses: main effect of group. .......................................................................................... 4
Table 4: Independent sample t-test for each condition across groups ............................................................... 4
Table 5: Latency analyses: 2 x 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA ....................................................................................... 6
Author contributions: LCM, PFS designed the experiments, collected and analysed the data. LCM, PFS and BWJ wrote the
manuscript.
* Corresponding author: ARC Centre of Cognitive Science and its Disorders (CCD), Department of Cognitive Science,
Macquarie University, 2109 NSW, Australia. Tel.: +61 02 9850 2951. E-mail address: leidy-janeth.castromeneses@students.mq.edu.au (L. J CASTRO-MENESES).
1 These authors contributed equally to this work
This material contains the results for the 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA with 2 between-group factor (younger and
older group) and 3 within-subject factors (ignore-stop, successful stops and failed stops). It also contains the
results for the independent samples t-test across groups for ignore-stop, successful stops and failed stops.
1. Amplitude analyses: main effect of condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA)
This material contains significant clusters found in the analysis of the main effect of condition in the 2 x 3
factorial ANOVA.
Table 1: Amplitude analyses: main effect of condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA)
T-contrast of conditions
Cluster-level
Peak-level
p-value
Peak coordinates**
Null hypothesis
Cluster
FWE(H0)
T
Peaks
size*
correctio
X
Y
n
Failed stops = Ignore-stop
< 0.001
4,174
5.9
3
-51, -66
-62,8
-21 to < 0.001
18,769
5.2
16
-11 to 50
40
< 0.001
7,712
5.1
5
21 to 51 -68 to -6
Ignore-stop = Failed stops
< 0.001
6,348
7
5
47 to 60 -34 to 34
< 0.001
23,656
6.3
14
15 to 47 -19 to 67
-51 to < 0.001
7,723
5.3
9
-65 to 5
17
-42 to Successful stops = Ignore-stop < 0.001
13,643
6
14
5 to 50
19
-62 to < 0.001
8,555
6
4
-30 to 24
49
-57 to < 0.001
7,268
5.6
4
45 to 19
11
Ignore-stop = Successful stops < 0.001
17,947
9
4
23 to 40 -21 to 21
-57 to < 0.001
10,245
7
12
-76 to -6
19
Failed stops = Successful
-32 to < 0.001
8,152
7
3
-6 to -1
stops
34
Successful stops = Failed
-55 to <0.001
5,030
5.8
11
-36 to 26
stops
11
<0.001
5,868
5
5
26 to 34 -11 to 10
* Comma indicates thousands
** Peak coordinates refer to spatial locations in the 2D topographic sensor-space SPM
Time (ms)
240-300
445-615
350-390
190-255
450-615
285-390
445-500
200-270
285-335
450-540
285-460
620-700
100-195
620-700
2. Amplitude analyses: interaction of group by condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA)
Table 2: Amplitude analyses: interaction of group by condition (2 x 3 flexible factorial ANOVA)
T-contrast of main effect of conditions
Cluster-level
Peak-level
Null hypothesis
p-value
Peak coordinates**
Cluster
(H0)
T Peaks
Time (ms)
FWEsize*
X
Y
correction
(Successful stops - Ignorestop)younger = (Successful stops < 0.01
2,931
5
4
55 to 68 -60 to-6 280-317
Ignore-stop)older
< 0.05
1,849
5
2
-21,-36
-81,-62
135-145
(Failed stops - Successful
stops)younger = (Failed stops < 0.05
20
5
1
32
40
100-105
Successful stops)older
* Comma indicates thousands
** Peak coordinates refer to spatial locations in the 2D topographic sensor-space SPM
3. Amplitude analyses: main effect of group
Because the main effect of group is statistically invalid in the flexible factorial ANOVA in SPM, we
conducted an independent sample t-test of the two groups by averaging together the 3 conditions (i.e.
ignore-stop trials, successful stops and failed stops) for each group.
Table 3: Amplitude analyses: main effect of group.
T-contrast of conditions
Cluster-level
Null hypothesis
p-value
(H0)
Cluster size* T Peaks
FWEcorrection
Peak-level
Peak coordinates**
X
Y
Time (ms)
Younger group = older group
<0.05
1,850
4.6
5
-28 to -42
-11 to 8
370-475
Older group = younger group
<0.05
2,386
6.1
3
30 to 38
-62 to 60
130-150
0.053
1,545
4.8
1
23
-14
430
2
15
21
270-200
<0.001 uncorr at peak level
* Comma indicates thousands
** Peak coordinates refer to spatial locations in the 2D topographic sensor-space SPM
3.1. Independent sample t-test for each condition across groups
We conducted an independent sample t-test for each condition because the main effect of group gave
significant differences across groups but we could not know what condition was driving the differences
between younger and older group.
Table 4: Independent sample t-test for each condition across groups
Independent sample t-test of conditions (t-contrast)
Cluster-level
Peak-level
Null hypothesis
p-value
Peak coordinates**
Cluste
Peak
(H0)
r
T*
Time (ms)
FWEs
X
Y
size*
correction
(Ignore-stop)older = (Ignore< 0.05
1,924 5.5
1
23
-68
135
stop)younger
(Successful stops)younger =
< 0.05
1,477 5.2
1
-28
-9
440
(Successful stops)older
(Successful stops)older =
(Successful stops)younger
(Failed stops)younger = (Failed
stops)older
(Failed stops)older = (Failed
stops)younger
< 0.05 unc
1,001
4.4
2
21, 23
-17, -6
265-280
< 0.05
2,086
5.6
3
30 to
40
-62 to 60
130-155
< 0.05
2,231
5.3
2
-26, -34
-9, 2
455-470
< 0.01
2,547
5.5
3
< 0.05 unc
1,247 4.8
< 0.01 uncorr at the peak
level
1
19 to
21
38
-14 to 22
-60
3
-2 to 15
18
* Comma indicates thousands
** Peak coordinates refer to spatial locations in the 2D topographic sensor-space SPM
430-530
155
205-250
4. Latency analyses: 2 x 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA
We conducted four 2 x 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA with the within subject factors of two region of interests (ROI,
left and right) and 3 peaks (Ignore-stop, Successful stops and Failed stops) and with the between subject
factor of groups (younger and older). Each mixed ANOVA was done separately for the dependent variables
of M2 peak, M3 peak and M4 peak.
Table 5: Latency analyses: 2 x 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA
DV
M2
M3
M4
Factor and interaction
ROI
ROI * group
Peaks
Peaks * group
ROI * peaks
ROI * peaks * group
Group
ROI
ROI * group
Peaks
Peaks * group
ROI * peaks
ROI * peaks * group
Group
ROI
ROI * group
Peaks
Peaks * group
ROI * peaks
ROI * peaks * group
Group
DV = dependent variable
df = degrees of freedom
ŋ2p = Partial eta-square
ROI = region of interest
F(df)
F(1,39) = 2.8
F(1,39) = 0.5
F(2,78) = 9.4
F(2,78) = 1.9
F(2,78) = 0.05
F(2,78) = 0.7
F(1,39) = 10.9
F(1,39) = 2.7
F(1,39) = 0.3
F(2,78) = 2.2
F(2,78) = 1.7
F(2,78) = 1.7
F(2,78) = 1.9
F(1,39) = 43.8
F(1,39) = 3.43
F(1,39) = 0.01
F(2,78) = 17.2
F(2,78) = 0.44
F(2,78) = 0.17
F(2,78) = 1.77
F(1,39) = 24.6
ŋ2p
p-value
0.1
0.5
< 0.001
0.7
0.9
0.5
< 0.01
0.11
0.6
0.12
0.19
0.18
0.15
< 0.001
0.07
0.9
< 0.001
0.65
0.84
0.18
< 0.001
***
**
***
***
***
0.07
0.01
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.23
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.53
0.08
0.01
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.39