## 3 Results
### Behavioral Results
#### 3.1.2 1-Back Task Data  
Hits  
A 2 (group: experimental group, control group) \(\times\) 2 (time measurement: pre-test, post-test) repeated ANOVA was conducted on the percent of hits. Table 4 shows the ANOVA summary table for all the dependent variables. The main effect of both time measurement and group was significant, and the interaction between time measurement and group was also significant, see Figure 3a. The post hoc analysis indicated that the experimental group had a higher percentage of hits in the post-test period (\(89.04\%\pm 8.43\%\)) than that of the pre-test period (\(70.83\%\pm 16.22\%\)), \(F(1,\,18)=19.31\), \(p<0.001\), \(\eta_{\text{p}}{}^{2}=0.56\), but the percentage of hits in the control group did not change significantly from the pre-test period (\(84.75\%\pm 15.58\%\)) to the post-test period (\(89.27\%\pm 9.46\%\)), \(F(1,\,18)=0.95\), \(p=0.34\). The post hoc test also showed that there was no difference in the percentage of hits between the experimental group (\(70.83\%\pm 16.22\%\)) and the control group (\(84.75\%\pm 15.58\%\)) in the pre-test, \(F(1,\,18)=3.39\), \(p=0.08\), and the difference was not significant between the experimental group (\(89.04\%\pm 8.43\%\)) and the control group (\(89.27\%\pm 9.46\%\)) in the post-test, \(F(1,\,18)=0.003\), \(p=0.96\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hits**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**False Alarms**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**D-Prime**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Response Times**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & \(F\) & \(df\) & \(\eta_{\text{p}}{}^{2}\) & \(F\) & \  
A 2 (group: experimental group, control group) \(\times\) 2 (time measurement: pre-test, post-test) repeated ANOVA was conducted on the percentage of false alarms, see Table 4. The main effect of both time measurement and group was significant, and the interaction between group and time measurement was marginally significant. As shown in Figure 3b, the post hoc analysis indicated that the experimental group had a smaller percentage of false alarms in the post-test period (10.96% \(\pm\) 8.42%) than that of the pre-test period (28.91% \(\pm\) 16.57%), \(F(1,\) 18) = 18.08, \(p<0.01\), \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.53, but the percentage of false alarms in the control group did not change significantly from the pre-test period (15.24% \(\pm\) 15.58%) to the post-test period (10.73% \(\pm\) 9.46%), \(F(1,\) 18) = 0.92, \(p=0.35\). The post hoc test from the other direction showed that there was no difference of the percentage of false alarms between the experimental group (28.91% \(\pm\) 16.57%) and the control group (15.24% \(\pm\) 15.58%) in the pre-test, \(F(1,\) 18) = 3.18, \(p=0.09\), and the difference was not significant between the experimental group (10.96% \(\pm\) 8.42%) and the control group (10.73% \(\pm\) 9.46%) in the post-test, \(F(1,\) 18) = 0.003, \(p=0.96\). D-Prime  
D-prime was estimated as \(d^{\prime}=Z_{\mathrm{Hits}}-Z_{\mathrm{False alarms}}\). To avoid \(d^{\prime}\) being undetermined when the hit or the false alarm rate was equal to 0 or 1, the fourth method proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [39] was conducted. Specifically, scores equal to 1 were replaced by \((n-0.5)/n\) and scores equal to 0 were replaced by 0.5/\(n\), with \(n\) representing the number of signal and noise trials. A 2 (group: experimental group, control group) \(\times\) 2 (time measurement: pre-test, post-test) repeated ANOVA was conducted on these values, similar to the previous analyses, see Table 4. The ANOVA revealed no significant effect on group, \(F(1,\) 18) = 1.02, \(p=0.33\), time measurement, \(F(1,\) 18) = 3.19, \(p=0.09\), or the interaction between the two variables, \(F(1,\) 18) = 0.04, \(p=0.85\). Reaction Times  
Only the RT of the correct trials was analyzed (399 incorrect trials, 29.17%).