Skip to Main Content
Table 1. 

Overall Effects: Interaction between Neural Activity in the Response Inhibition Network (BG and rIFG) during Go/No-go and Passenger Type (Risky vs. Cautious) during the Driving Simulator Predicted Driving Risk (Percent Red) in the Presence of a Peer, Controlling for Baseline Driving Behavior (Solo Drive), the Order of Participant Solo and Passenger Drives (Drive Order), Self-reported SPP, and the Percentage of Successful No-go Trials (Percent Correct No-go)

VariableBSEBetatSig.
Solo drive 0.786 0.128 0.685 6.146 <.001 
Passenger type 0.026 0.017 0.161 1.574 .126 
Drive order 0.025 0.019 0.154 1.35 .188 
SPP 0.065 0.033 0.202 1.993 .056 
Percent correct no-go 0.064 0.166 0.038 0.388 .701 
BG and rIFG −0.052 0.056 −0.090 −0.933 .358 
BG and rIFG × Pass type 0.144 0.057 0.245 2.548 .016 
   N = 37 Model R2 = .75 
VariableBSEBetatSig.
Solo drive 0.786 0.128 0.685 6.146 <.001 
Passenger type 0.026 0.017 0.161 1.574 .126 
Drive order 0.025 0.019 0.154 1.35 .188 
SPP 0.065 0.033 0.202 1.993 .056 
Percent correct no-go 0.064 0.166 0.038 0.388 .701 
BG and rIFG −0.052 0.056 −0.090 −0.933 .358 
BG and rIFG × Pass type 0.144 0.057 0.245 2.548 .016 
   N = 37 Model R2 = .75 

Simple slope analysis to probe the nature of the interaction demonstrated that, as neural activity in the response inhibition network increased, participants took significantly fewer risks in the presence of cautious peers, with no significant relationship between neural activity and risk in the presence of risky peers (see results inline).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal