# Time Course of Sleep Inertia Dissipation in Memory Tasks
## 3 Results
### Lexical Decision Task  
We analyzed RTs of valid trial. In addition, we discarded, for each participant and each list, all RTs above or below 2.5 standard deviations as outliers (about 3%). Data relating to the response speed in the lexical decision task are shown in Table 2. The ANOVA on reaction time revealed that experimental condition reached significance (F(2,34) = 7.55, \(p<0.001\)). The wake condition obtained a lower reaction time (mean = 590 ms) in comparison with both REM (mean = 636 ms; \(p<0.05\)) and St.2 awakenings (mean = 645 ms; \(p<0.005\)) (Scheffe post-hoc test). A significant session effect was also found (F(8,136) = 3.09, \(p<0.005\)). The Scheffe post-hoc test did not show any significant differences between the trials. The interaction between condition and trial reached statistical significance \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sleep Parameters** & **Stage 2 Sleep Condition** & **REM Sleep Condition** & **t\({}_{T}\)** & \(p\)** \\ \hline LOff (time) & 24 h:27 min & 24 h:33 m & 1.71 & ns \\ LOn (time) & 7 h:30 m & 7 h:34 m & 0.74 & ns \\ SOL (min) & 10.61 \(\pm\) 8.39 & 13.55 \(\pm\) 6.43 & 1.44 & ns \\ TIB (min) & 417.94 \(\pm\) 20.98 & 431.39 \(\pm\) 14.86 & 2.04 & ns \\ TST (min) & 372.68 \(\pm\) 28.26 & 375.87 \(\pm\) 18.39 & 0.42 & ns \\ SE & 89.12 \(\pm\) 4.18 & 87.23 \(\pm\) 4.69 & 1.50 & ns \\ Stage 1\% & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 2.42 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 1.68 & ns \\ Stage 2\% & 45.63 \(\pm\) 3.92 & 46.09 \(\pm\) 4.77 & 0.51 & ns \\ SWS \% & 20.66 \(\pm\) 3.66 & 19.29 \(\pm\) 3.62 & 1.95 & ns \\ REM \% & 20.56 \(\pm\) 3.04 & 19.54 \(\pm\) 2.45 & 1.78 & ns \\ REM Latency (min) & 97.46 \(\pm\) 40.41 & 106.61 \(\pm\) 38.70 & 1.18 & ns \\ WASO (min) & 16.29 \(\pm\) 11.96 & 25.61 \(\pm\) 19.18 & 2.06 & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of sleep parameters in experimental awakenings. (F(16,272) = 2.64, \(p\) < 0.001). In particular, the mean reaction time for the wake condition at t0 was significantly lower than for the REM condition (\(p\) < 0.005). We performed a further one-way ANOVA for each trial using the experimental condition (three levels, wake, REM, and St.2) as a within-subjects factor. In this case, we observed a significant result at t0 (F(2,34) = 14.7, \(p\) < 0.00001), t1 (F(2,34) = 5.81, \(p\) < 0.01), t2 (F(2,34) = 5.64, \(p\) < 0.001), and t4 (F(2,34) = 3.51, \(p\) < 0.05). Based on the Scheffe post-hoc test, reaction times in the wake condition were faster in comparison to those in the REM condition at t0 (\(p\) < 0.00001) and t2 (\(p\) < 0.01); faster RTs were also observed in the wake condition compared to St.2 at t0 (\(p\) < 0.001), t1 (\(p\) < 0.01), and t2 (\(p\) < 0.05). The mean RT for prime words was 646 ms, while for target words, the mean RT was 483 ms. Thus, a general priming effect was found; however, the ANOVA did not display any significant effect or interaction. As regards accuracy (i.e., percentage of correct responses), we performed a three-way ANOVA with experimental condition (wake, awakening from REM, and awakening from St.2), experimental trial (from T0 to T8), and target (words and non-words) as variables (see Figure 1). As regards the first two factors, no significant effects were found. On the contrary, we observed a significant difference between the accuracy of words (99.5%) and non-words (96.9%) (F(1,17) = 26.91; \(p\) < 0.0001). No interactions reached statistical significance. In the analysis for the trial, we detected a significant effect at t2 for non-words (F(2,34) = 3,4; \(p\) < 0.05). No post-hoc comparisons were significant.