LMM testing the relationship between prestimulus mu amplitude bin and SEP amplitude for datasets that combine both attention conditions (model no. 16–21; Fig. 1A–C)
| Condition | Model No. | Lmer syntax | Likelihood | LRT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subthreshold, both attention conditions | (16) | As (3), but across conditions, mediator model, Fig. 1A | −355.71 | (17) χ2 = −4.8 |
| (17) | P60∼1 + Att + (1 + Att|Subject), independence model, Fig. 1B | −353.3 | ||
| (18) | P60∼1 + Bin + I(Bin∧2) + Bin*Att + I(Bin∧2)*Att+ | −330.6 | (16) χ2 = 50.22** | |
| (1 + Bin + I(Bin∧2)|Subject: Att), interaction model, Fig. 1C | (17) χ2 = 45.41*** | |||
| Suprathreshold, both attention conditions | (19) | As (9), but across conditions, mediator model, Fig. 1A | −894.7 | (20) χ2 = −5.5 |
| (20) | P50∼1 + Att+(1 + Att|Subject), independence model, Fig. 1B | −891.93 | ||
| (21) | P50∼1 + Bin + I(Bin∧2)+Bin*Att+I(Bin∧2)*Att+ | −866.23 | (19) χ2 = 56.94*a | |
| (1 + Bin + I(Bin∧2)|Subject:Att), interaction model, Fig. 1C | (20) χ2 = 51.4*** |
↵The interaction model is compared with the two smaller models (mediator model and independence model, indicated by the model number given in the LRT column). Parametric bootstrapping was based on 10,000 simulations: * < 0.05–0.01, ** < 0.01–0.001, *** < 0.001–0.
↵aFor this test, we doubled the number of simulations, because the p value based on 10,000 simulations marginally missed significance (p = 0.058).