controls. This effect remained when controlling for CIS-R distress, 96) =4.24; F(1, p=.04; ηp2 =.04. Recognition Task: interpretative bias in CFS versus control group There was a significant Group x Target x Valence interaction, 100) = 20.94, F(1, p<.001, =.17. To further explore this effect we conducted a mixed model ANCOVA with group as ηp2 the between-subjects factor, valence (somatic or positive target) as the within-subjects factor and age as covariate for targets and foils separately. The ANCOVA for targets demonstrated a significant Group × Valence interaction, 100) = 25.83, =.21; which remained F(1, p<.001, ηp2 when controlling for comorbid distress, 99) = 4.38, =.1042. Independent F(1, p=0.39, ηp2 samples t-tests showed the CFS group endorsed positive interpretations significantly less than healthy controls, -3.8, and somatic (negative) interpretations significantly more t(101)= p<.001; than healthy controls, 2.13, The ANCOVA for foils demonstrated no significant t(91)= p=.04. main effects (F(1, 100)= .05, p=.82). Attention Network Test: attentional control in CFS versus control group The CFS group had slower overall mean RT on the ANT compared to healthy controls (649.33 vs. 556.63ms), Figure 2 illustrates the mean ANT attentional t(101)=3.88, p<.001. control scores of both groups. The CFS group had significantly poorer attentional control (i.e. higher ANT scores) than healthy participants, controlling for age; 100) =4.05; F(1, p=.05; ηp2 =.04. Relationship between attentional control and attentional bias
controls. This effect remained when controlling for CIS-R distress, F(1, 96) =4.24; p=.04; ηp2 =.04. Recognition Task: interpretative bias in CFS versus control group There was a significant Group x Target x Valence interaction, F(1, 100) = 20.94, p<.001, ηp2 =.17. To further explore this effect we conducted a mixed model ANCOVA with group as the between-subjects factor, valence (somatic or positive target) as the within-subjects factor and age as covariate for targets and foils separately. The ANCOVA for targets demonstrated a significant Group × Valence interaction, F(1, 100) = 25.83, p<.001, ηp2 =.21; which remained when controlling for comorbid distress, F(1, 99) = 4.38, p=0.39, ηp2 =.1042. Independent samples t-tests showed the CFS group endorsed positive interpretations significantly less than healthy controls, t(101)= -3.8, p<.001; and somatic (negative) interpretations significantly more than healthy controls, t(91)= 2.13, p=.04. The ANCOVA for foils demonstrated no significant main effects (F(1, 100)= .05, p=.82). Attention Network Test: attentional control in CFS versus control group The CFS group had slower overall mean RT on the ANT compared to healthy controls (649.33 vs. 556.63ms), t(101)=3.88, p<.001. Figure 2 illustrates the mean ANT attentional control scores of both groups. The CFS group had significantly poorer attentional control (i.e. higher ANT scores) than healthy participants, controlling for age; F(1, 100) =4.05; p=.05; ηp2 =.04. Relationship between attentional control and attentional bias
Psych_Med_Accepted_manuscript_authors_copy.docx