The lack of such a correlation would suggest that the interference observed in cross-modal conditions is different from that observed in within-modality conditions.
Regions of interest (ROIs) were defined by peak response to anomaly averaging over modality conditions.
In comparison to control blinks, latency shortening was significant in all modality conditions whereas magnitude facilitation was not significant during tactile warning stimuli.
Conversely, there should not be any differences between same-modality and different-modality conditions.
The data collected were, patients characteristics, initial diagnosis, SAPS II, ventilation modality, conditions of invasive catheters insertion (peripheral venous catheter, central venous catheter, urinary catheter).
Again, one-sample t-tests revealed that AB magnitude was significantly different from zero in both within-modality conditions (ps <.001), but not in the between-modalities conditions (ps >.20).
The commonly observed decreased T1 performance at lag 1 was found in within-modality, but not between-modality conditions, indicating modality-specific interference between the two targets.
The order of the modality conditions, axes of rotation and object sets was fully counterbalanced across subjects.
Objects were rotated about each axis in turn, all the modality conditions being completed for a given axis before moving on to the next axis of rotation.
No significant main effect of condition (p = .24) was found, but the Condition × Lag interaction was borderline significant, F(15, 600) = 1.83, MSE = 58.22, p = .053, η2p = .04, such that performance at lag 1 was decreased in the within-modality conditions, but not in the between-modality conditions.
