As shown in Figures 5A , a paired t -test showed a marginally significant effect of posture condition on mean [HbO] for SWM ( t = 1.87, df = 16, p = 0.079; standing-SWM, 2.81 × 10 −4 ± 1.55 × 10 −4 mmol/L; sitting-SWM, 3.57 × 10 −4 ± 1.22 × 10 −4 mmol/L), but not NWM ( t = −0.081, df = 16, p = 0.94; standing-NWM, 2.03 × 10 −4 ± 1.07 × 10 −4 mmol/L; sitting-NWM, 1.94 × 10 −4 ± 6.68 × 10 −5 mmol/L).
Similarly, the d′ of SWM, but not NWM, showed a trend toward being an important predictor of MS of COP (SWM: β = 6.08, p = 0.084; NWM: β = 0.33, p = 0.92). fNIRS Different Types of WM Interacted Differently With Postural Control: Postural Control Tended to Decrease SWM, but Not NWM, Activity in SWM-Related ROIs, Without a Committed Impact on NWM-Related ROIs A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a main effect of ROI (ROI-1 vs. −2 vs. −3; see Table 1 for definition of areas within each ROI) on mean [HbO] during SWM task performance ( F (2,15) = 3.80, p = 0.027).