borderline significancep = 0.003
The SAFT90 protocol showed borderline significance (pre: 7.46 ± 1.55, post: 6.53 ± 1.36; Z = 2.941, raw p = 0.003, ES = 0.50) (Fig. 7 C).
The SAFT90 protocol showed borderline significance (pre: 7.46 ± 1.55, post: 6.53 ± 1.36; Z = 2.941, raw p = 0.003, ES = 0.50) (Fig. 7 C).
Following Bonferroni correction for the cognitive performance family (adjusted α = 0.001), only the Stroop condition showed a trend toward significance (adjusted p = 0.012), while the combined (adjusted p = 0.052) and T-SAFT90 (adjusted p = 0.063) protocols did not survive correction.
Following Bonferroni correction for the cognitive performance family (adjusted α = 0.001), the T-SAFT90 (adjusted p = 0.005) and combined protocols (adjusted p = 0.005) remained statistically significant, while the Stroop condition showed a trend that did not survive correction (adjusted p = 0.017).
Between-protocol analyses for movement time changes approached but did not reach statistical significance (Friedman test: χ2(3) = 7.824, raw p = 0.050).
The comparison between SAFT90 and combined protocols showed a trend (Z = -2.731, adjusted p = 0.024), while T-SAFT90 versus Stroop approached significance (Z = -2.258, adjusted p = 0.096).