Table 2.

Recognition phase multilevel logistic regression model results

Effects	Description	Model 1: normative congruence					Model 2: subjective congruence
Effects	Description	β	SE	Z value	Sig.	OR	β	SE	Z value	Sig.	OR
Group	vmPFC or NC	−0.022	0.137	−0.161		0.96	−0.020	0.137	−0.143		0.96
Object–context congruence	Congruent or incongruent	0.136	0.147	2.893	^**	1.31	0.053	0.047	1.116		1.11
Item type	Old, similar, or new	0.811	0.062	13.185	^**	5.06	0.808	0.061	13.184	^***	5.03
Group × object–context congruence	Two-way interaction	0.124	0.047	2.659	^*	1.13	0.110	0.047	2.341	^*	1.12
Group × item type	Two-way interaction	0.040	0.047	0.855		1.04	0.037	0.047	0.799		1.04
Item type × object–context congruence	Two-way interaction	0.008	0.047	0.180		1.01	0.015	0.047	0.316		1.02
Group × item type × object–context congruence	Three-way interaction	−0.017	0.046	−0.363		0.98	0.003	0.047	0.071		1.00
Confidence at test (normalized)	Confidence rating (1–4)	0.976	0.218	4.469	^***	2.65	0.977	0.219	4.466	^***	2.66
Response time at test (normalized)	Response time	−0.549	0.104	−5.252	^***	0.58	−0.547	0.105	−5.203	^***	0.58
Previous response (one-back)	Resp. to prev. item	0.185	0.092	2.017	^*	1.20	0.180	0.091	1.973	^*	1.20
Previous response (two-back)	Resp. to item before prev.	0.188	0.091	2.070	^*	1.21	0.180	0.091	1.992	^*	1.20

The best-fit model (Model 1) and an alternative model (Model 2) analyzing recognition-phase “old” responses. The group × congruence effect was the key test of differential influence of previous context on recognition and was statistically significant in both models. Model 1 included normative congruence categories as a predictor. Model 2 substituted subjective congruence categories. β, Coefficient; OR, odds ratio; Sig., statistical significance of predictor.
↵*p < 0.05,
↵**p < 0.01,
↵***p < 0.001.