120
during the shock task was significantly greater than the
reward task for block 1 [T(l,46) = 4.724, P < .0001] and 4
[T(1,46) = 2.925, P < .01], but not 2 [T(l,46) = 1.59, P =
.1195] and 3 [T(l,46) = .433, P = .6671]. A table of the
t-tests, Table C-62, is presented in Appendix C. A means
table is presented below.
Table 4-8 Means and Standard Deviations of Recoded Range-
Corrected SCR Comparing Shock and Reward Tasks by Block
Shock
Reward
Block One
11.35 (16.71)
-5.68 (12.28)
Block Two
4.75 (14.39)
1.04 (10.89)
Block Three
3.09 (14.62)
2.02 (11.57)
Block Four
8.10 (16.18)
.140 (15.91)
Independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections were
used to examine the task by group effect. Separate t-tests
comparing groups were conducted for each task. Since there
were no significant differences between the LH NCS and the
RH NCS during shock task [T(l,22) = -1.209, P = .2393] or
reward task [T(l,22) = .082, P = .9355], the two groups were
combined. Examination of the shock condition revealed that
the LHD group (mean=1.735, sd=6.545) had a significantly
smaller difference between the shock and control trials
compared to the CONS (mean=12.43, sd=12.29), [T(l,34) = -
2.809, P < .01]. The RHD patients (mean=.127, sd=3.582)
also significantly smaller differences between the shock and
control trials when compared with the CONS, [T(l,33) =
3.234, P < .01]. The LHD and RHD groups did not differ from