highly significantP = 0.001
2 D ) both show highly significant ( F 1,9 = 22.88, r 2 = 0.72, P = 0.001 and F 1,9 = 29.1, r 2 = 0.76, P = 0.0004, respectively) linear decreases as a function of time awake peaking around −20% and −15%, respectively.
2 D ) both show highly significant ( F 1,9 = 22.88, r 2 = 0.72, P = 0.001 and F 1,9 = 29.1, r 2 = 0.76, P = 0.0004, respectively) linear decreases as a function of time awake peaking around −20% and −15%, respectively.
8 C ) and asymmetry (Fig 8 D ) also shows significant sinusoidal modulation (reduced χ 2 1.9 and 2.8 times better than the null model), accounting for 39.2% and 68.2% of the variance ( t (9) = 2.41, P = 0.04; t (9) = 4.40, P = 0.002), respectively, but the modulation of mean speed responsiveness (not shown) did not quite reach significance ( t (9) = 1.94, P = 0.09).
However, it should be noted that any performance improvement over time due to learning could not have generated the time‐awake trends we observed and would have had no net effect on the fitted circadian modulation, but could potentially have concealed small time‐awake impairment trends that then failed to reach significance.