The simplest effect we observe is smaller responses to a full-field flash in the daylight condition.
Examining the simple interaction effects we identified that the simple hemisphere × contrast interaction was significant in the posterior (F1,11 = 6.721, P = 0.025) but not in the anterior regions (F1,11 = 0.033, P = 0.858).
In order to interpret this complex interaction effect, we examined simple effects at each base contrast.
When reports contained multivariate analyses, we prioritised simple effects; however if no simple effects were reported, we included outcome measures adjusted for other variables.
To test for differences between Trial Sets over time, we used simple effects ANOVAs to compare mean headings for trials 1 10 versus 11 20, in each of five 1-s time bins preceding the intersection.
In G-SAIM we simulated simple effects of with- and between-object grouping.
Looking at the simple effect of TTFC, we find in Table 3 (Model II) that after controlling for confounders, among those with a low level of nicotine dependence, nurses were less likely to have made a quit attempt in the previous 12 months compared to other females during that same time (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.98).
Thus, looking at the simple effect of TTFC, we find in Table 3 (Model I) that after controlling for confounders, among those with a high level of nicotine dependence, female nurses had three times the odds of having ever made a quit attempt compared to that of other women in the general population (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.9, 5.1).
We explored these interactions by examining the simple effects while inclusively masking for the interaction at the same threshold.
We thus considered all possible models with simple effects and ordered them using AIC (e.g. [ 63]).
