highly significantP = 0.007
This model explained 63% of variance and was highly significant ( R 2 = 0.63; F (2,10) = 8.38, P = 0.007; see Table 2 and Fig. 4 ).
This model explained 63% of variance and was highly significant ( R 2 = 0.63; F (2,10) = 8.38, P = 0.007; see Table 2 and Fig. 4 ).
Because of the almost significant item type by electrode interaction for the second time-window, we performed post-hoc LSD tests and found that illegal words elicited larger positive ERP component than legal words over the 8 fronto-central electrodes (Fp1, Fp2, F3, Fz, F4, C3, Cz, C4; all P’s < 0.01).
These results were confirmed by a marginally significant correlation with the language subscale score of the BSID-III (r(11) = 0.51, P FDR = 0.14; see Fig. 4 ) in the melodically enriched condition and not in the flat contour one.