Significant group by trial interaction effects was found for systolic blood pressure following administration of verbal fluency [F 1,54) = 5.86, p < 0.05] and nonverbal fluency stressors [F 1,54) = 13.68, p < .001].001]
The difference between groups was significant (group effect, F1,14 = 10.1, p<0.01; group × trial interaction, F2,28 = 3.6, p<0.05), thus showing that for a perceptually difficult color discrimination, associating quinine with the CS− facilitates discrimination by free-flying honeybees.
Consistent with previous reports [2], [3], participants were able to quickly adjust their grip and load force rates from the expected weight of each object to the actual mass of each object (size by trial interaction; F 28,532) = 1.71,p<.05 and F 28,532) = 1.66,p<.05 respectively; Figure 1a [middle and lower]).
As expected, the size of the correspondence effect in trial n (mean RT on incongruent trials mean RT on congruent trials) was smaller when trials were preceded by an incongruent trial than when trials were preceded by a congruent trial (interaction prime-target correspondence in trial n and prime-target correspondence trial n-1, F 1,41) = 78.8; p<0.001).
Interestingly, rather than adapting their fingertip forces to the actual mass of each object, participants persisted in applying forces in line with their expectations of heaviness - no size by trial interaction was observed with grip force rate or load force rate (p = .62 and p = .84 respectively; see Figure 1b [middle and lower]).
In contrast to the improvement in the formation of reference memory, G-CSF did not improve working memory to a significant level in the initial acquisition phase (Figure 2A) (ANOVA group p = 0.061, trial (F 1,38): 95,019; p<0.001), group by trial interaction (p = 0.952)).
Again, the size of the correspondence effect in trial n (mean error rate on incongruent trials mean error rate on congruent trials) was smaller when trials were preceded by an incongruent trial than when trials were preceded by a congruent trial (interaction prime-target correspondence in trial n and prime-target correspondence in trial n-1, F 1,41) = 58.9; p<0.001).
There was also a significant condition-by-trial interaction, F 3,153) = 13.87, p < .001, η 2 = 0.21, 1-β = .99: In the static-images condition, only performance on big/heavy = fast trials (M = .74) was lower than all other trials (Ms = .99).99
In the second stage, the following model terms were fitted: overall mean (fixed), trial main effects (fixed), genotype main effect (random), genotype-by-trial interaction (random).
There was some evidence for learning across trials, reflected in a significant condition-by-trial interaction (GLMM with likelihood ratio test: χ(3)2 = 11.2, p = 0.01).
It should, however, be noted that such within-trial interaction analysis would provide an estimate for the magnitude of potential treatment modifier effect rather than proving beyond doubt that these interactions exist at the study level.
