These indexes were calculated as follows: alerting–no cue minus d

These indexes were calculated as follows: alerting–no cue minus double cue; orienting–previous center cue minus previous spatial cue; executive (conflict)–incompatible targets minus targets. We used statistica 11 (StatSoft, Tulsa, USA) and Prism 6 (GraphPad, La Jolla, USA) software for data analysis. First, we ran goodness-of-fit analysis (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality of data distribution). We used repeated measures analyses of variance (anovas), followed by Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc tests. In the analysis of the letter recall part of the ABT, the between-subjects

factor was group (PD vs. controls) and the within-subjects factors were time (baseline vs. follow-up) and stimulus type (target vs. distractor letters). In the analysis of the scene recognition part of the ABT, the between-subjects factor was group (PD vs. controls), Lumacaftor supplier and the within-subjects factors were time (baseline vs. follow-up) and stimulus type (scenes associated with targets, distractors and scenes alone). In the ANT, we ran separate anovas for mean response time and error rate, response time indexes, and error rate indexes with the group as the between-subjects factor and time as the within-subjects factor. The same anova design was used for the analysis of rating scales (HAM-D and BIS-11). In the replication sample, time was not a within-subjects factor because it was

a cross-sectional study. To explore the relationship between changes in ABT and rating BI 2536 molecular weight scales, we calculated Pearson’s product www.selleck.co.jp/products/erastin.html moment correlation coefficients, corrected for multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni method. Demographic parameters were compared with two-tailed t-tests and chi-square tests. The level of statistical significance was α < 0.05.

Table 1 depicts the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients with PD and control individuals. One patient with PD had specific phobia. None of the other patients and controls exhibited DSM-IV Axis I disorders at baseline and follow-up. MIDI/SOGS revealed no impulse control disorders at baseline and follow-up. Patients with PD and control individuals did not differ in age, gender, education, IQ and socioeconomic status. Patients with PD scored higher than controls on the HAM-D scale at baseline but not at follow-up. Patients with PD and controls did not differ significantly in BIS-11 scores, although patients with PD achieved higher scores at follow-up relative to baseline (Table 1). Patients with PD and control volunteers displayed similar letter detection performances at baseline and follow-up (anova, P > 0.5). As expected, letter detection performance for targets was higher than that for distractors (P < 0.0001; Fig. 2). Figure 3 depicts the results from the scene recognition test. The anova revealed significant main effects of group (F1,49 = 7.0, P < 0.05, η2 = 0.

Comments are closed.