Copyright 2012 Aileen M. Echiverri-Cohen - University of Washington

Does Inhibition Change Differentially across Treatments (PE vs. SER) with Successful Treatment over
Time (pre-treatment, post-treatment)?
Finally, to examine the relationship among treatment modality (PE vs. SER), treatment
response, and time from pre- to post-treatment, the three-way interaction terms (treatment
modality x treatment response x time) were added to the models. As before, random intercept
models were fit for each of the lags in AB (Lags 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and short lead intervals of PPI
(30 ms, 60 ms, 120 ms) as the dependent variables, with treatment modality, treatment response,
time (pre-treatment, post-treatment), and their interaction terms.
Attentional Blink. For lag 3 only, there was a significant treatment modality x treatment
response x time, F(1, 30.69) = 6.83, p < .05, d = 0.94. See Figure 1. For PE, changes in
accuracy in lag 3 from pre- to post-treatment was faster for individuals that showed greater
treatment response (B = .002194, SE = .003, t(30.69) = 2.61, p < .05). Whereas, for SER,
changes in accuracy in lag 3 from pre- to post-treatment was slower for those individuals that
showed greater treatment response (B = -.006239, SE = .002, t(30.52) = -2.81, p < .05). To
further clarify these relationships, contrast statements showed rate of accuracy in lag 3 of AB
increased over the course of treatment with more response to PE (M = .0270, SE = .022) and rate
of accuracy in lag 3 of AB decreased over the course of treatment with more response to SER (M
= .0358, SE = .022).
Prepulse Inhibition. In contrast, there were no treatment modality x treatment response x
time interactions for PPI across all short lead intervals (30, 60, 120).
Thus, there was evidence from AB that the rate of inhibitory changes from pre- to post-
treatment between the two treatment modalities differed depending on responder status.
Specifically, accuracy on lag 3 of AB increased more in those who made more improvements
38