Advances in Neural Signal Processing
20
For the frontal ROI, none of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.32). The
condition-time window interaction was found [F(2,20) = 7.66; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.43].
Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that Peak1 in vertical was significantly different from
Peak2 in vertical (p < 0.05). No differences between vertical and diagonal were
found (see Figure 7A ).
For the parietal ROI, the condition-time window interaction was significant
[F(2, 20) = 28.72; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.74]. Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that vertical and diagonal were significantly different in both Peak1 and Peak2 (p < 0.01)
(see Figure 7B). Peak1 and Peak2 were also significantly different for both vertical
(p < 0.001) and diagonal (p < 0.05). None of the main effects were significant (all
p > 0.07).
For POz, the condition-time window interaction was significant [F(2,
20) = 28.52; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.74]. Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that vertical and
diagonal were significantly different in both Peak1 and Peak2 (p < 0.01) (see
Figure 7C). Peak1 and Peak2 were significantly different in both vertical (p < 0.001)
and diagonal (p < 0.05). None of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.19).
Figure 7.
Al£ha (8–12 Hz) time-frequency plot with peak segmentation during comeback period in frontal ROI (A),
parietal ROI (C), and POz (E). Analysis of peaks p1 and p2 during comeback period in frontal ROI (B),
parietal ROI (panel D), and POz (panel F). In A, C, and E, highlighted rectangles represent time windows
used for analysis. In B, D, and F, only significant or almost significant comparisons between vertical and
diagonal are displayed. Bold lines represent significant differences (p < 0.05), and the dashed line represents a
difference that approaches statistical significance.
20
For the frontal ROI, none of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.32). The
condition-time window interaction was found [F(2,20) = 7.66; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.43].
Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that Peak1 in vertical was significantly different from
Peak2 in vertical (p < 0.05). No differences between vertical and diagonal were
found (see Figure 7A ).
For the parietal ROI, the condition-time window interaction was significant
[F(2, 20) = 28.72; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.74]. Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that vertical and diagonal were significantly different in both Peak1 and Peak2 (p < 0.01)
(see Figure 7B). Peak1 and Peak2 were also significantly different for both vertical
(p < 0.001) and diagonal (p < 0.05). None of the main effects were significant (all
p > 0.07).
For POz, the condition-time window interaction was significant [F(2,
20) = 28.52; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.74]. Fisher LSD post hoc revealed that vertical and
diagonal were significantly different in both Peak1 and Peak2 (p < 0.01) (see
Figure 7C). Peak1 and Peak2 were significantly different in both vertical (p < 0.001)
and diagonal (p < 0.05). None of the main effects were significant (all p > 0.19).
Figure 7.
Al£ha (8–12 Hz) time-frequency plot with peak segmentation during comeback period in frontal ROI (A),
parietal ROI (C), and POz (E). Analysis of peaks p1 and p2 during comeback period in frontal ROI (B),
parietal ROI (panel D), and POz (panel F). In A, C, and E, highlighted rectangles represent time windows
used for analysis. In B, D, and F, only significant or almost significant comparisons between vertical and
diagonal are displayed. Bold lines represent significant differences (p < 0.05), and the dashed line represents a
difference that approaches statistical significance.