Table 5.
Open in new tab

Results of Bayesian GLMM for the director task in the rTJP experiment comparing theta with beta tACS. We report the upper and lower borders of the 95% HDI of the posterior distributions. SEM are in brackets. Significant effects are highlighted in bold

PredictorEstimate (SE)2.5%97.5%
Intercept3.52 (0.34)2.934.25
tACStheta-beta−0.26 (0.40)−1.020.55
Condition−0.32 (0.70)−1.691.11
Discomfort0.05 (0.22)−0.360.50
tACStheta-beta × Condition−1.28 (0.51)−2.28−0.23
PredictorEstimate (SE)2.5%97.5%
Intercept3.52 (0.34)2.934.25
tACStheta-beta−0.26 (0.40)−1.020.55
Condition−0.32 (0.70)−1.691.11
Discomfort0.05 (0.22)−0.360.50
tACStheta-beta × Condition−1.28 (0.51)−2.28−0.23
Table 5.
Open in new tab

Results of Bayesian GLMM for the director task in the rTJP experiment comparing theta with beta tACS. We report the upper and lower borders of the 95% HDI of the posterior distributions. SEM are in brackets. Significant effects are highlighted in bold

PredictorEstimate (SE)2.5%97.5%
Intercept3.52 (0.34)2.934.25
tACStheta-beta−0.26 (0.40)−1.020.55
Condition−0.32 (0.70)−1.691.11
Discomfort0.05 (0.22)−0.360.50
tACStheta-beta × Condition−1.28 (0.51)−2.28−0.23
PredictorEstimate (SE)2.5%97.5%
Intercept3.52 (0.34)2.934.25
tACStheta-beta−0.26 (0.40)−1.020.55
Condition−0.32 (0.70)−1.691.11
Discomfort0.05 (0.22)−0.360.50
tACStheta-beta × Condition−1.28 (0.51)−2.28−0.23
Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close