Rumoured Ballyhoo Of Oxacillin

230, t(66) = 2.040, p = 0.045, RPartial = 0.244. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction, �� = -0.371, t(66) = 2.346, p = 0.022, RPartial = -0.277, indicating that children with lower math skill were more likely to be positively affected by the BA condition (in terms of RT-accuracy) than those with higher math skill (Figure ?Figure44). FIGURE 4 Accuracy scores and standard error per condition and general math skills (E = lower and A = higher general Oxacillin math skill). Speed The overall mean reaction time on correct trials was 2791 ms (SD = 1331). Three additional participants were excluded from the analyses as their data fell over 2 SDs above the mean (>5453 ms; no participants scored Selleckchem EPZ5676 6 on level D, and N = 2 on level E). Math skill (recoded E = -2, D = -1, C = 0, B = 1, and A = 2) was not a significant predictor, F(1,65) = 0.327, p = 0.569, R2adjusted= -0.010, showing a non-significant relation with speed on correct RT trials �� = -0.071, t(65) = -0.527, p = 0.569. We added condition together with general math skill as a predictor for speed on correct trials into the stepwise regression model. The overall model-fit was non-significant, F(2,64) = 2.878, p = 0.064, R2adjusted= 0.054, math skill remained a non-significant predictor, �� = -0.083, t(64) = -0.695, p = 0.490, RPartial= -0.083, and condition was a positive LY2109761 nmr significant predictor, with children in the BA condition being slower on correct trials overall, �� = 0.279, t(64) = 2.325 p = 0.023, RPartial = 0.279. To assess a possible interaction effect we entered the interaction term of condition and math skill into the regression model, this yielded no significant results, nor a greater fit of the model. FIGURE 5 Mean reaction times and standard error for the RT-task per condition and general math skills (E lowest score, A highest score on general math skill). Speed�CAccuracy Trade-off Additionally, for exploratory purposes we assessed whether there was a speed�Caccuracy trade-off by calculating an inverse efficiency measure (IES; Townsend and Ashby, 1978; e.g., Setti et al., 2009), IES = . A higher score entails a more extreme association of speed and accuracy, where slower reaction times are associated with a higher proportion of correct responses or faster reaction time with a higher proportion of incorrect responses. The overall mean IES was 5709 ms (SD = 2870). Four participants were excluded from this analysis as their scores fell 2 SDs above the mean (>11450 ms; no participants scored