Copyright 2012 Aileen M. Echiverri-Cohen - University of Washington
Copyright 2012 Aileen M. Echiverri-Cohen - University of Washington Copyright 2012 Aileen M. Echiverri-Cohen - University of Washington
Table 4 Pearson Coefficients between Measures of Inhibition AB 1. Lag 1 2. Lag 2 .46* 3. Lag 3 .38* .81* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4. Lag 4 .29* .72* .8* 5. Lag 5 .32* .54* .6* .74* PPI (%) 6. 30 ms (%) .07 .01 -.13 -.1 -.1 7. 60 ms (%) -.07 -.09 -.17 -.16 -.03 .75* 8. 120 ms (%) -.004 .02 -.08 -.14 -.04 .78* -.59* * p < .05. 72
Table 5 Correlations between AB and PPI, Psychopathology, Functioning, Treatment Drop-out, from Pre to Post-treatment and Pre to Follow-up (Completers only) Pre-treatment to Post-treatment (n = 46) Pre-treatment to Three-month Follow-Up (n = 46) Variable PTSD Dep Anx Diss Functioning Drop-out PTSD Dep Anx Diss Functioning (PSSI) (BDI) (STAI) (DES) (SDS) (PSSI) (BDI) (STAI) (DES) (SDS) AB Lag 1 -.13 .01 .01 -.02 -.18 .11 -.11 -.16 -.17 -.14 -.25* Lag 2 .05 .13 .01 .03 -.03 .06 .05 -.01 .05 .04 -.07 Lag 3 .02 .11 .04 -.03 -.02 .05 .002 -.05 .02 .09 -.02 Lag 4 .03 .12 .08 -.05 -.01 .03 -.18 -.19 -.14 -.06 -.21 Lag 5 .06 .12 .16 -.01 .05 -.05 -.28* -.34* -.25* -.15 -.35 PPI 30 ms .18 .05 .16 .03 -.13 -.18 .01 -.11 .06 .07 -.11 60 ms .21 .19 .17 .13 -.15 -.4* .25 .16 .24 .3 .14 120 ms .11 .07 .05 .01 -.30* -.16 .02 -.2 -.06 .06 -.18 73
- Page 25 and 26: Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS; Shee
- Page 27 and 28: There were four types of startle st
- Page 29 and 30: videotapes of SER sessions. For thi
- Page 31 and 32: magnitude on the no prepulse trials
- Page 33 and 34: Spinella & Miley, 2004) were examin
- Page 35 and 36: For the treatment modality and trea
- Page 37 and 38: Data Analytic Strategy Treatment Mo
- Page 39 and 40: The relationship between treatment
- Page 41 and 42: Prepulse Inhibition of Startle. Con
- Page 43 and 44: from PE than those that made less i
- Page 45 and 46: attentional inhibitory functioning
- Page 47 and 48: inhibitory inputs and ultimately de
- Page 49 and 50: shown to modify attentional process
- Page 51 and 52: and may not be regained. Indeed, ol
- Page 53 and 54: Miyake, 2004) and further construct
- Page 55 and 56: REFERENCES Araki, T., Kasai, K., Ya
- Page 57 and 58: attention and working memory. Psych
- Page 59 and 60: Optimizing inhibitory learning duri
- Page 61 and 62: Friedman, M., Davidson, J., & Stine
- Page 63 and 64: during continuous performance task:
- Page 65 and 66: tell us about the treatment of post
- Page 67 and 68: Paige, S. R., Reid, G. M., Allen, M
- Page 69 and 70: Attention and regional cerebral blo
- Page 71 and 72: Tasca, G.A., & Gallop, R. (2009). M
- Page 73 and 74: Table 1 Summary of Participant Char
- Page 75: Table 3 Pre-treatment and Post-trea
- Page 79 and 80: Table 6 Parameter Estimates, Standa
- Page 81 and 82: Table 8 Correlations Between Age, G
- Page 83: % Accuracy 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.
Table 4<br />
Pearson Coefficients between Measures <strong>of</strong> Inhibition<br />
AB<br />
1. Lag 1<br />
2. Lag 2 .46*<br />
3. Lag 3 .38* .81*<br />
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.<br />
4. Lag 4 .29* .72* .8*<br />
5. Lag 5 .32* .54* .6* .74*<br />
PPI (%)<br />
6. 30 ms (%) .07 .01 -.13 -.1 -.1<br />
7. 60 ms (%) -.07 -.09 -.17 -.16 -.03 .75*<br />
8. 120 ms (%) -.004 .02 -.08 -.14 -.04 .78* -.59*<br />
* p < .05.<br />
72
Change language