Table 1 Effects of TEN and sham treatment on cognitive performance.
TES | Sham | Comparison | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | M | SD | n | M | SD | ANOVA | P | |
Flanker | ||||||||
% Correct | 10 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 10 | 99.00 | 2.11 | F (1, 19) = 2.25 | 0.15 |
Congruent RT | 10 | 612.37 | 249.27 | 10 | 570.43 | 190.43 | F (1, 19) = 0.18 | 0.68 |
Incongruent RT | 10 | 585.92 | 170.93 | 10 | 618.00 | 182.06 | F (1, 19) = 0.17 | 0.69 |
Stroop | ||||||||
% Correct | 8 | 98.75 | 3.54 | 6 | 97.82 | 2.79 | F (1, 13) = 0.28 | 0.61 |
Congruent RT | 8 | 973.41 | 305.72 | 6 | 931.88 | 132.58 | F (1, 13) = 0.10 | 0.76 |
Incongruent RT | 8 | 1247.82 | 289.62 | 6 | 1102.69 | 170.31 | F (1, 13) = 1.18 | 0.30 |
N-Back | ||||||||
% Correct | 8 | 78.75 | 10.69 | 9 | 83.75 | 13.42 | F (1, 16) = 0.71 | 0.41 |
Average RT | 8 | 705.80 | 103.74 | 9 | 713.25 | 133.01 | F (1, 16) = 0.02 | 0.90 |
Combined Time | 8 | 921.80 | 245.53 | 9 | 890.29 | 291.78 | F (1, 16) = 0.06 | 0.81 |