128 trials were presented. First, DD minus control difference scores were computed for tests and for the most important experimental contrasts (see details in Supplementary material): simple RT; animal Stroop task congruency; numerical and physical size Stroop task numerical distance effect, facilitation and interference; subitizing slope (numbers 1–3), counting slope (numbers 4–6); non-symbolic comparison slope and congruency effect, symbolic comparison slope; Stop-signal task hit and correct rejection performance. Difference score data was assessed by robust non-parametric permutation testing (Ludbrook and Dudley, 1998). Dependent variables were test scores, accuracy selleck antibody and median RT. Procedure followed Chihara and Hesterberg (2011).

DD minus control group difference scores were computed for all measures and the whole pool of participants were randomly divided into two groups of 12 participants one million times. Two-tailed significance values were determined with six decimal digits precision. In order to provide an estimate of effect size, empirical 95% confidence intervals for difference scores ALK inhibitor were also determined by bootstrap resampling producing one million bootstrap samples with replacement for each group. Second, all experimental data was also analyzed

by analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with full factorial designs. Third, while permutation tests provide extremely stringent criteria and groups were perfectly matched on several factors, difference scores showing significant permutation testing effects were nevertheless further analyzed (-)-p-Bromotetramisole Oxalate by ANCOVAs with a group factor and with covariates of verbal intelligence (WISC Vocabulary), non-verbal intelligence (Raven) and simple RT speed (median RT from the Simple RT task). With matched groups this procedure can further increase power (Miller and Chapman, 2001). Fourth, simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to study the relative weight of variables which significantly discriminated between the DD and control groups and were correlated with maths performance (the mean of the MaLT and WIAT Numerical Operations scales). Regressions are described further in Results. Analyses were programmed in Matlab. Fig. 2

summarizes significant DD versus control group differences in standardized test scores. The two groups differed on measures of visuo-spatial STM (Dot Matrix) and WM (OOO Recall, OOO Processing). 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals were robustly below zero for each measure showing a significant group difference (i.e., the DD group performed worse than the control group). For comparison, means and confidence intervals for non-significant verbal STM (Digit Recall, Word Recall) and WM measures (Listening Recall and Processing) are also presented. Table 1 shows F and p values from ANCOVAs for significant tests taking verbal IQ, non-verbal IQ and processing speed as covariates. Fig. 3A summarizes main DD minus control group differences in accuracy.