Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of models predicting network parameters by AP and AQ

From: Autistic traits, resting-state connectivity, and absolute pitch in professional musicians: shared and distinct neural features

  

Predictors (β)

  

Comparison of models

γ EO beta

Intercept

MAD

PIS

AQ

F (df)

p value

R 2

R 2 adjusted

AIC

 Model 1

3.54e−1***

2.07e−4**

–

4.06e−3*

6.011 (2,60)

< 0.004**

0.167

0.139

− 145.45

 Model 2

4.383–1***

1.58e−4*

–

–

5.232 (1,60)

< 0.026*

0.078

0.064

− 141.13

 Model 3

4.25e−1***

–

− 2.62e−3**

4.44e−3**

6.889 (2, 59)

< 0.002**

0.189

0.162

− 146.01

 Model 4

4.96e−1***

–

− 1.83e−3*

–

6.009 (1,60)

< 0.017*

0.091

0.076

− 140.91

σ EC gamma

Intercept

MAD

PIS

AQ

F value

p value

R 2

R 2 adjusted

AIC

 Model 1

5.4e−1*

1.02e−3*

–

5.25e−3

3.378 (2,60)

< 0.041*

0.101

0.071

74.09

 Model 2

6.49e−1***

9.57e−4*

–

–

6.504

< 0.013*

0.096

0.081

72.43

 Model 3

8.08e−1***

–

− 1.11e−2*

9.30e−3

2.981 (2,59)

< 0.058

0.092

0.061

73.53

 Model 4

9.56e−1***

–

− 9.41e−3*

–

5.06 (1,60)

< 0.028*

0.078

0.062

72.48

λ EC delta

Intercept

MAD

PIS

AQ

F value

p value

R 2

R 2 adjusted

AIC

 Model 1

1.82***

− 8.34e−5

–

4.40e−04

2.433 (2,60)

0.096

0.075

0.044

− 205.34

 Model 2

1.83***

− 8.88e−5*

–

–

4.736 (1,61)

< 0.033*

0.072

0.057

− 207.14

 Model 3

1.79***

–

1.30e−3**

− 1.29e−5

4.228 (2,59)

< 0.019*

0.125

0.096

− 204.45

 Model 4

1.79***

–

1.29e−3**

–

8.6 (1,60)

< 0.005**

0.125

0.111

− 206.45

  1. Parameters, significance (F statistics), and comparison of different models. Models are compared using R2, R2adjusted, and AIC (Akaike information criterion). Smaller AIC and higher R2 indicate superior models. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.01 (uncorrected)