Figure 3.

The forest plot of the random-effects meta-analysis on the mean ACCURACY of performance on the last vs. the first mCST trial (A) and after vs. before the session break on all experimental days (B). Positive effect sizes (Hedges' g represented as boxes on the plot) indicate an improvement while negative effect sizes indicate a decline in accuracy of performance on the last vs. the first mCST trial or after vs. before the break. The 95%C.I. of all five effect sizes (the horizontal lines through the boxes) overlapped with zero. The mean weighted effect sizes g (the centre of each diamond in A and B) were small and their 95%C.I. (the edges of the diamonds) overlapped with zero. Therefore, there was no change in the mean accuracy of performance in the long-term (last vs. first mCST trial; A) or the short-term (after vs. before the session break; B). The relative weights indicate that the study 3 in A and the study 2 in B had the highest contribution to the computation of the mean weighted effect sizes.

Kedzior et al. BMC Neuroscience 2011 12:101   doi:10.1186/1471-2202-12-101
Download authors' original image