Ction (Table three), which is explained by the decreased and enhanced positiveCO

Having a sample of 48 men and women with social anxiety scores that clustered get Pemetrexed (disodium) closely title= rstb.2014.0252 around the population imply, we hadButton et al.Table two. Mean (SD) for the positive response rate (number of positive responses in 32 trials) and errors to criterion by condition-rule and gas. Condition-rule Air (n = 48) M Positive response rate self-like self-dislike difference other-like other-dislike Difference self-like self-dislike difference other-like other-dislike difference 0.87 0.23 0.64 0.86 0.18 0.68 3.04 5.38 2.33 3.06 4.08 1.02 SD 0.34 0.42 0.35 0.39 3.97 4.43 3.82 4.79 CO2 (n = 48) M 0.84 0.24 0.60 0.78 0.26 0.52 3.13 5.63 ?.83 5.40 6.56 ?.17 SD 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.44 4.95 5.91 6.03 6.22 0.03 0.00 0.07 ?0.08 ?0.08 ?0.25 ?2.33 ?2.48 DifferenceErrors to criterionM: mean.Journal of Psychopharmacology 30(10)Figure 3. Learning curves for each rule and gas, by condition. (a) Self-condition and (b) Other-condition.response rate in the like and dislike rules, respectively, particularly in the other-referential condition (Table 1 shows mean differences). In sensitivity analyses, there was no evidence that the gas order was associated with positive responses (IRR 1.03; 95 CI 0.98, 1.08; p = 0.265), and adding gas order into the fully saturated interaction model did not alter the results substantially. Examining errors to criterion, we found evidence for the main effects of gas, condition and rule (Table 2). Individuals made 33 (95 CI 21 , 46 ) more errors on average during CO2 inhalation relative to air, 11 (95 CI 1 , 22 ) more errors learning other-referential evaluation relative to selfreferential, and 48 (34 , 63 ) more errors learning dislike, relative to like. Addition of the interaction terms into the model indicated that the main effect of gas were mostly explained by interactions with gas ?condition, and gas ?condition ?rule interaction (Table 3), suggesting that the increasederror rate following CO2 is specific to other-referential processing. This is illustrated in Figure 4. In sensitivity analyses, inhaling CO2 first was associated with fewer errors than air first (IRR 0.66; 95 title= fnhum.2013.00464 CI 0.46, 0.95; p = 0.025), but adjusting for order didn't substantively alter the results either in the key effects or the interaction model.Modulation by trait social anxietyWe identified tiny assistance for our hypothesis that state anxiety would exaggerate the association among FNE and constructive responses within the self-dislike rule. There was no proof of a most important effect of gas (IRR 1.02; 95 CI 0.88, 1.18; p = 0.9), or FNE (IRR 1.00; 95 CI 0.98, 1.02; p = 0.99), and no proof of a gas x FNE interaction, (IRR 1.00; 95 CI 0.98, 1.02; p = 0.eight). Having a sample of 48 folks with social anxiety scores that clustered closely title= rstb.2014.0252 about the population mean, we hadButton et al.Table 2. Incidence rate ratios and 95 CIs from regression models testing for most important effects of gas, condition and rule.