Porally-defined global form0.**0.**0.SPM = Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.3.2. Regression analyses: Between-group jasp.12117 Results from the series of between-group regression analyses revealed significant group differences for some of the visual tasks. Raw coherence thresholds for the group of readers with dyslexia and relatively good readers are reported in Table 5. For each task, results from the between-group regression analyses are reported in Table 6 and described in the sections below. 3.2.1. Random-dot global motion In the regression model for the random-dot global motion task, the control variables explained 19 of the variance, F2, 83 = 9.89, p < 0.001. Gender was associated with performance on the task. Females' coherence thresholds were significantly higher than those of males. In addition, Non-Verbal IQ was a significant predictor of performance. Individuals with a lower IQ had higher coherence thresholds on the random-dot global motion task. At step two, the R2 change was significant, F1, 82 = 8.25, p < 0.01. Reading Group was associated with performance on the task. It explained an Nutlin-3a chiral supplier additional 8 of the variance after controlling for the effects of Gender and Non-Verbal IQ. Coherence thresholds were significantly higher in readers with dyslexia who had poor phonemic decoding skills. 3.2.2. Spatially 1-D global motion The control variables explained 6 of the variance in the model for the spatially 1-D global motion task, F2, 83 = 2.55, p = 0.08. There was no significant effect of Gender but Non-Verbal IQ was negatively associated with performance. Individuals with a lower IQ had higher coherence thresholds on the spatially 1-D global motion task. The R2 change at step two approached but did not reach statistical significance, F1, 82 = 3.20, p = 0.08. Coherencethresholds did not differ between the two reader groups. However, there was a non-significant trend. 3.2.3. Static global form Gender and Non-Verbal IQ did not explain a significant amount of variance in the model for static global form task, F2, 83 = 0.11, p = 0.90. Moreover, the R2 change at step two failed to reach statistical significance, F1, 82 = 0.10, p = 0.75. Reading Group was not associated with performance on the static global form task. Coherence thresholds did not differ significantly between the two groups. 3.2.4. Temporally-defined global form The control variables did not explain a significant amount of j.jebo.2013.04.005 variance in the model for the temporally-defined global form task, F2, 83 = 1.49, p = 0.23. However, the R2 change at step two was significant, F1, 82 = 6.02, p = 0.02. Reading Group was associated with performance on the task. It explained an additional 7 of the variance after controlling for the effects of Gender and Non-Verbal IQ. Coherence thresholds were significantly higher in the group of readers with dyslexia who had poor phonemic decoding skills. 3.3. Independence of visual tasks Scatterplots illustrating performance of the entire sample GDC-0084 dose across the four visual tasks are given in Fig. 3. As expected, a strong and significant correlation was found between thresholds across the two global motion tasks and the two global form tasks (random-dot global motion task and spatially 1-D global motion task, r106 = 0.58, p < 0.001; static global form task and temporally-defined global form task, r106 = 0.23, p = 0.02).R. Johnston et al. / Brain and Cognition 108 (2016) 20?1 Table 5 Group coherence threshold ( ) statisti.Porally-defined global form0.**0.**0.SPM = Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.3.2. Regression analyses: Between-group jasp.12117 Results from the series of between-group regression analyses revealed significant group differences for some of the visual tasks. Raw coherence thresholds for the group of readers with dyslexia and relatively good readers are reported in Table 5. For each task, results from the between-group regression analyses are reported in Table 6 and described in the sections below. 3.2.1. Random-dot global motion In the regression model for the random-dot global motion task, the control variables explained 19 of the variance, F2, 83 = 9.89, p < 0.001. Gender was associated with performance on the task. Females' coherence thresholds were significantly higher than those of males. In addition, Non-Verbal IQ was a significant predictor of performance. Individuals with a lower IQ had higher coherence thresholds on the random-dot global motion task. At step two, the R2 change was significant, F1, 82 = 8.25, p < 0.01. Reading Group was associated with performance on the task. It explained an additional 8 of the variance after controlling for the effects of Gender and Non-Verbal IQ. Coherence thresholds were significantly higher in readers with dyslexia who had poor phonemic decoding skills. 3.2.2. Spatially 1-D global motion The control variables explained 6 of the variance in the model for the spatially 1-D global motion task, F2, 83 = 2.55, p = 0.08. There was no significant effect of Gender but Non-Verbal IQ was negatively associated with performance. Individuals with a lower IQ had higher coherence thresholds on the spatially 1-D global motion task. The R2 change at step two approached but did not reach statistical significance, F1, 82 = 3.20, p = 0.08. Coherencethresholds did not differ between the two reader groups. However, there was a non-significant trend. 3.2.3. Static global form Gender and Non-Verbal IQ did not explain a significant amount of variance in the model for static global form task, F2, 83 = 0.11, p = 0.90. Moreover, the R2 change at step two failed to reach statistical significance, F1, 82 = 0.10, p = 0.75. Reading Group was not associated with performance on the static global form task. Coherence thresholds did not differ significantly between the two groups. 3.2.4. Temporally-defined global form The control variables did not explain a significant amount of j.jebo.2013.04.005 variance in the model for the temporally-defined global form task, F2, 83 = 1.49, p = 0.23. However, the R2 change at step two was significant, F1, 82 = 6.02, p = 0.02. Reading Group was associated with performance on the task. It explained an additional 7 of the variance after controlling for the effects of Gender and Non-Verbal IQ. Coherence thresholds were significantly higher in the group of readers with dyslexia who had poor phonemic decoding skills. 3.3. Independence of visual tasks Scatterplots illustrating performance of the entire sample across the four visual tasks are given in Fig. 3. As expected, a strong and significant correlation was found between thresholds across the two global motion tasks and the two global form tasks (random-dot global motion task and spatially 1-D global motion task, r106 = 0.58, p < 0.001; static global form task and temporally-defined global form task, r106 = 0.23, p = 0.02).R. Johnston et al. / Brain and Cognition 108 (2016) 20?1 Table 5 Group coherence threshold ( ) statisti.
