Figure 4

Eye tracking data of the modified antisaccade paradigm. Panel (a): M (SE) of the first saccade errors (%), and Panel (b): M (SE) of the second saccade errors (%) for food and neutral stimuli by treatment group (IG, CG) and measurement point (T0, T1, T2). Significant effects after Bonferroni correction with p < .025: in panel (a), there is overall a significant time effect with p < .001. In IG, this effect was significant at T2 vs. T0 (food stimuli: p = .007, neutral stimuli: p = .008). In CG, this effect was significant at T1 vs. T0 (food stimuli: p = .003, neutral stimuli: p < .001) and at T2 vs. T0 (food stimuli: p < .001, neutral stimuli: p = .005). In panel (b), there is overall a significant time effect with p < .003. In IG, this effect was significant at T1 vs. T0 (food stimuli: p = .018, neutral stimuli: p = .015). In CG, this effect was significant for neutral stimuli at T1 vs. T0 (p = .017) and at T2 vs. T0 (p = .004). (b) displays the original values though the General Estimating Equations for the second saccade errors (%) were computed with logarithmised values to achieve normal distribution. There is a small inconsistency between (b) and the text concerning the second saccade errors (%) in IG: Measurement point T2 has a smaller mean under the food and the neutral stimuli condition as compared to measurement point T1, but only the reduction from T0 to T1 does achieve significance in the GEE model. This is due to the change to the log scale in the model. Concerning the food stimuli, this is additionally due to the change from a descriptive parameter based on unweighted observations to a model parameter derived from weighted observations with weights determined by the working correlation of the GEE model (exchangeable structure).