## 3 Results
### Executive Function  
#### 3.2.1 TMT-A Assessment Test Results  
The pre-test scores and post-test scores showed that the mean of the pre-test was 61.15, the standard deviation was 2.25, and the standard error was 0.36; the mean of the post-test was 56.53, the standard deviation was 3.77, and the standard error was 0.60 (Table 13) (Figure 10). The paired sample correlation showed that there was a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 14). The paired sample \(t\)-test result showed that there was a significant difference (\(p<0.001\)) (Table 15). The mixed repeated-measure ANOVA results were significantly different in pre/post-test, F [1, 32] = 215.252, \(p<0.001\); difficulty, F [1, 32] = 77.491, \(p<0.001\); pressure, F [1, 32] = 4.585, \(p<0.05\); the interaction effect of difficulty and pressure, F [1, 32] = 7.704, \(p<0.01\) (Table 16). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **N** & **SD** & **SE** \\ \hline TMT-A Pre-test & 61.15 & 40 & 2.25 & 0.36 \\ TMT-A Post-test & 56.53 & 40 & 3.77 & 0.60 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: N, number of participants; SD, standard deviation; and SE, standard error.  
\end{table} 
Table 13: Paired samples statistics of TMT-A. Figure 10: Results of executive function assessment tests before and after training (with 95% CI for the mean). (**A**) TMT-A assessment test results. (**B**) TMT-B assessment test results. Figure 9: The graph of three-factor interaction in SAT. Figure (**A**) shows the interaction of pre/post-test * difficulty with pressure condition; Figure (**B**) shows the interaction of pre/post-test * difficulty without pressure condition. Note: pre/post-test (the horizontal axis), pre-test = 1, and post-test = 2. Table 17 showed the mean of scores and other details of three independent variables (difficulty, pressure, pre/post-test) with 2 levels in TMT-A. Figure 11A shows two lines intersecting each other, and they are not parallel due to the different slopes. The blue line is steeper than the green line. So, there was exponential an interaction of pre/post-test * difficulty in the TMT-A. Figure 11B shows two separate lines, and they are not parallel due to the different slopes. The blue line is steeper than \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type III**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**F**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sig.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Partial**} \\
**Source (TMT-A)** & **Sum of** & **df** & **Square** & & & **Sig.** & **Eta** \\  & **Squares** & & & & & & **Squared** \\ \hline Pre/Post-Test & 427.813 & 1 & 427.813 & 215.252 & 0.000 *** & 0.871 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Difficulty & 154.013 & 1 & 154.013 & 77.491 & 0.000 *** & 0.708 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Pressure & 9.113 & 1 & 9.113 & 4.585 & 0.040 * & 0.125 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Competition & 0.012 & 1 & 0.012 & 0.006 & 0.937 & 0.000 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Difficulty * Pressure & 15.313 & 1 & 15.313 & 7.704 & 0.009 *** & 0.194 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Difficulty * Competition & 3.613 & 1 & 3.613 & 1.818 & 0.187 & 0.054 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Pressure * Competition & 1.513 & 1 & 1.513 & 0.761 & 0.390 & 0.023 \\ Pre/Post-Test * Difficulty * Pressure * Competition & 4.513 & 1 & 4.513 & 2.270 & 0.142 & 0.066 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p\) < 0.05; **_p_ < 0.01; and *** \(p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 16: Tests of within-subject effects of TMT-A. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **N** & **Correlation** & **Sig.** \\ \hline TMT-A Pre/post-test & 40 & 0.375 & 0.017 * \\ \hline Note: * \(p\) < 0.05. & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Paired sample test of TMT-A.