However, there was a significant interaction of trial and anger expression style [F 1,54) = 10.89, p = .02].
A repeated-measures ANOVA on mean RTs for each subject with trial type (target singleton, target nonsingleton, or target absent) and display size (3, 6, or 9) as factors revealed a main effect for trial type, F 2, 26) = 6.5, p<.01, and display size, F 2, 26) = 26.4, p<.01, and a significant interaction of trial type by display size, F 4, 52) = 3.0, p<.05.
Factors associated with IgG included DPI (p < 0.0001) and the interaction of trial by DPI (p < 0.0001).
Here, adjusted phenotypes were phenotypes adjusted for estimates of fixed effects (sex, pen within trial, and the interaction of trial and parity class) within the validation population.
Sex and the interaction of trial and parity of the sow were included as fixed factors and pen within trial, animal, and litter as random effects.
During model simplification, the interaction of trial number with target type dropped out of the model, suggesting that learning rates were not different for different targets.
When years of education was included as a covariate it explained a significant part of the variance (F [1,669] = 35.5; P < 0.001), and the interaction of trial number by years of education was also significant (F [6,4014] = 2.9; P = 0.01).
A 2-way ANOVA of compartment type against remapping condition showed a main effect of compartment type [ F3,48 = 8.50, P < 0.001] and a significant interaction of trial type against compartment [ F6,48 = 5.97, P < 0.001].
However, we believe that we captured more recent trends in interviews, conducted almost one year later (e.g. AllTrials Initiative and the associated discussion of making IPD publically available, direct interaction of trial registries with funding bodies).
During model simplification, the interaction of trial number with target type dropped out of the model, suggesting that people did not differentially change their capture strategy with different targets.
