Wood was used to the same deceptively simple effect in new furniture developed by the young Spanish designer Tomás Alonso for the Japanese company Karimoku and by his British and German counterparts, Jasper Morrison and Konstantin Grcic respectively, for the Italian manufacturer Mattiazzi.
In the left DLPFC/FEF, a similar pattern was observed, even if it failed to reach significance at corrected levels (interaction, x, y, z: −34, −4, 54, F1,58 = 19.05, p<0.001; simple effect in spontaneous participants, x, y, z: −36, −2, 54, t = −4.55, p<0.001; in instructed participants, x, y, z: −40, −12, 54, t = 2.65, p = 0.007, all significance levels uncorrected).
We further examined the second-order simple effects in the posterior regions; this showed that accuracy in the left posterior STS was significantly higher for NV versus rotNV when compared with clear versus rot (P = 0.011), while there was no significant difference between the contrasts in the right posterior STS (P = 0.567).
Thus, a reanalysis with the dichotomized CHRNA4 variable (C− vs. C+) revealed a more stable Load x Genotype interaction, F 1, 400) = 5.9, P = 0.016, η2 = 0.03, with a significant simple effect difference in the high load condition, t(200) = 2.2, P = 0.027, but not the low load condition, P = 0.29 (see figure 5B).
The first contrast assessed a simple effect of time in the scanner (i.e. Rest1/Task1 vs. Task8/Rest2 = −1/−1/+1/+1) and the second assessed an interaction of time and type of run (Rest1/Rest2 = −1/+1 and Task1/Task8 = +1/−1, or together = −1 +1 −1 +1).
However, when treated with AMPH, animals born to TURP-VEH mothers showed significantly greater locomotion throughout the 5 pre-treatment days, in comparison to their SAL-VEH counterparts (Fig. 4B; prenatal treatment by supplementation interaction, F 1, 62) = 4.84, p = 0.032; simple effect of treatment in the VEH condition, F 1, 62) = 6.96, p = 0.01).
In line with the current theoretical state of the art we hypothesised to find evidence for a so-called simple effect of threat, in that threat is positively associated to behaviour under high efficacy (but not under low efficacy), and evidence for a simple effect of efficacy in that efficacy is positively associated to behaviour under high threat (but not under low threat).
A simple effect test indicated that in the loss domain, participants selected more $ bets in the preferential choice task than in the judgment-based choice task (p<0.05).
When significant interactions were identified, differences in simple effect means were identified using Fisher's least significant differences.
Simple effect tests as implemented in SAS (LSMEANS/SLICE) were used to determine if there were significant differences 1) between types within treatments (i.e., WT ambient vs. SBPase ambient) or 2) between treatments within types (i.e., SBPase ambient vs. SBPase elevated).
Simple effect analyses revealed that performance in the same study/test condition differed from the different size target condition, F 1,63) = 77.93, MSe = 0.03, η2 = 0.55, but not from the different context size condition, F 1,63) = 3.16, MSe = 0.01, p = 0.08, η2 = 0.05.
