94
ANOVA table, Table C-6, is presented in Appendix C. To
further explore the three way interaction, separate repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAS) for each condition
with group as the between subject factor and block as the
within subject factor were conducted. For the shock
condition, the main effect for group, block, and the
interaction were all nonsignificant. Examination of the
no-shock condition, revealed that there was a main effect
for group [F(3,43) = 3.38, P < .05] and a block by group
interaction [F(9,129) = 7.77, P <.05] The main effect for
tone by block was not significant. See Tables C-7 and C-8
in Appendix C.
Post-hoc analyses of the group effect were conducted
using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Because there were no significant differences between the RH
NCS and the LH NCS [T(l,21) = 1.753, P = .0942], the control
subjects were combined into one group and compared to the
LHD and RHD subjects. Since three comparisons were made,
the p-value needed to be < .017 to reach significance. The
LHD gioup (mean=-2.30, sd=2.57) had a greater D1 compared to
the RHD group (mean=-1.15, sd=1.58) during the no-shock
condition [T (1,22) = -2.605, P < .0162] There were no
significant differences between the LHD group and the CONs
or the RHD group and the CONs. The means and standard
deviations for the CONs are reported below: LH NCS (mean=-