7–97.7%) with a ratio effect of comparable effect size (1.7%) with larger SD (2.97%). However, considering the similar size of the overall accuracy and distance effects in relation to Price et al. (2007), in our study the .1% between group

ratio effect difference we found can be considered practically zero. This is confirmed by the fact that the bootstrap 95% confidence interval of the non-symbolic comparison ratio effect was clearly focused on zero (see Fig. 3.), the very small confidence intervals were approximately symmetric around zero and SEs were very small, about .4%. All the above suggests that there was not much variability or directional bias in our data and that there was not even an indication of a difference in the ratio effect between the groups. Fourth, regarding the symbolic magnitude

comparison task the mean of the between group difference was 2% and the SD of the data was about 5.71%. The DD group showed a smaller LDK378 in vitro absolute value distance effect than the control group (3.26% vs 5.24%). Crucially, DD actually showed slightly better performance on the task than the controls while RTs were practically identical. This makes it unlikely that DD had impaired access to MRs in this task. Nevertheless, in the data from the Arabic number comparison task of Mussolin et al., 2010a and Mussolin et al., 2010b the overall mean distance effect (calculated for all four ratios used; see ibid. Table 2) was actually exactly the same in the Lapatinib ic50 control and DD groups (2.76%) and the difference between the most extreme distance levels was also the same in both groups (8.3%). The DD and the control

group showed a difference because the closest levels of distance differed more in the DD than in the control group. However, this means that the DD group was .6% less accurate at the closest level of distance while it was actually 1.1% more accurate than the controls at the second closest level of distance. The difference between the groups was 1.7% (controls: 2.7%; DD: 4.4%) and the SD of the data was about 1.75% (this is not very clear as the table reports exactly the same standard deviation values for both groups which is probably a mistake). Hence, the group difference was .97SD. For our 12 subjects such an effect size would give Power > .99. (It is to note that crucial Galeterone analysis results in Mussolin et al. (2010) relied on trials collected from 5 different stimulus formats (5 × 24 = 120 trials for each level of distance) rather than from an individual stimulus format.) However, we only measured a 2% (.33SD) between group difference in the distance effect. In addition, as noted above, the somewhat higher accuracy in the DD than in the control group also makes it unlikely that our DD group had problems with accessing the magnitude of single Arabic digits. Fifth, it is important to emphasize the difference between the robustness (large effect size) of WM and inhibition results in contrast to MR-related results.