## Article
### Interference Suppression: Flanker Task  
The repeated-measures ANOVA on accuracy (congruent CR and incongruent CR) by class, sex, and assessment modality reveals the significant main effects of the congru  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Class** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Min** & **Max** & **Skew** & **SE** & **Kurt** & **SE** & **V.C. ** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Post hoc** \\ _(\(p\)! 0.05)_ \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline Mixed Congruent RT & 1 & 45 & 1113.02 & 147.36 & 717 & 1361 & \(-\)0.65 & 0.35 & 0.36 & 0.69 & 0.13 & \(>\)6,8 \\  & 2 & 153 & 1049.94 & 172.94 & 649 & 1499 & 0.22 & 0.20 & \(-\)0.40 & 0.39 & 0.16 & \(>\)8 \\  & 3 & 201 & 1051.84 & 164.6  
ent/incongruent condition (F\({}_{1,1104}\) = 116.76, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.10) and class (F\({}_{7,1104}\) = 25.20, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.14). The interaction between condition and class was significant (F\({}_{7,1104}\) = 5.91, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.04), which demonstrates that the accuracy scores show a flanker effect from the classes 2 to 5 (all ps < 0.05) but not for the other classes. Accuracy on the congruent trials differs among the classes: class 1 and 2 differ from classes 3 and above; class 3 and 4 differ from the upper classes, while there are no significant differences from classes 5 to 8. In the case of the incongruent trials, the first four classes differ from the classes above and there are no other significant effects (Table 1; Figure S2a). The interactions class X AM (F\({}_{1,1104}\) = 3.67, \(p\) = 0.015, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.01), and condition X class X AM (F\({}_{7,1104}\) = 5.72, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.04) were also significant. Post hoc analyses show that there is no difference between an assessment in-person and a remote assessment in congruent and incongruent trials for each class in the correspondent values. For example, the accuracy for the remote vs. in-person in congruent (or incongruent) trials in class 1 and so on, except for the incongruent trials in class 4, showed that children evaluated remotely were less accurate than children evaluated in-person (32.06 vs. 35.35, \(p\) < 0.05). In-person, there are the following significant differences between the classes on the congruent scores: 1 < 4-8; 2 < 3-8; 3 < 5; and 7-8. Remotely, there are the following significant differences between the classes on the congruent scores: 1-2 < 3-8 and 3 < 6-8. In-person there are the following significant differences between the classes on the incongruent scores: 1 < 4-8 and 3 < 7-8. Remotely, there are the following significant differences between the classes on the incongruent scores: 1 > 2; 2 < 3-8; 3 < 5-8; and 4 < 6-8 (Table S1). The variability ranges between 0.2 and 0.13, and between 0.06 and 0.31 for the congruent and incongruent correct responses, respectively, showed a decreasing trend with age for both (Table 1). The repeated-measures ANOVA on RT (congruent RT and incongruent RT) by class, sex, and AM reveal the significant main effects of the congruent/incongruent condition (F\({}_{1,1115}\) = 709.08, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.39), class (F\({}_{7,1115}\) = 67.58, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.30), and sex (F\({}_{1,1115}\) = 6.24, \(p\) = 0.013, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.01). The interaction between the congruent/incongruent condition and class is also significant (F\({}_{7,1115}\) = 11.09, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}_{\rm P}\) = 0.07). Post hoc analyses confirm that there is a flanker effect for all the class levels (all ps < 0.05) and that the RT in congruent conditions decreases with classes, with a more pronounced slope in the first five classes: class 1 differs from classes 3 and above, class 2 and 3 differ from classes 4 and above, class 4 differs from class 5, and class 5 and 6 differ from class 8.