Influences of age and pubertal development on P300 amplitude trajectory across two years in female adolescents

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Baseline (T1) and two-year follow-up (T2) stimulus-locked waveforms and head maps (n = 129).

• 

  Fig. 2. Association between age and change in P300 amplitude over two years (n = 129). Note. Change in P300 amplitude was computed by saving the unstandardized residuals in a linear regression that predicted two-year follow-up flanker P300 amplitude from baseline flanker P300 amplitude.

• 

  Fig. 3. Two-way interaction between baseline age and baseline PDS total score in predicting change in flanker P300 amplitude over two years (n = 129). Note. PDS represents baseline Pubertal Development Scale total score. Change in P300 amplitude was computed by saving the unstandardized residuals in a linear regression that predicted two-year follow-up flanker P300 amplitude from baseline flanker P300 amplitude. A more positive change value represents P300 amplitude growth while a negative value represents reductions in P300 amplitude. Compared to Fig. 2, the current figure does not present each individuals’ change in P300 score which reduces the scale of the y-axis.

• 

  Fig. 4. Johnson-Neyman pubertal development and age interaction plot predicting change in P300.

• 

  Fig. 5. Two-way interaction between baseline age and baseline PDS total score in predicting change in error rates over two years (n = 129). Note. PDS represents baseline Pubertal Development Scale total score. Change in error rates was computed by saving the unstandardized residuals in a linear regression that predicted two-year follow-up error rate from baseline error rate. A more positive change value represents growth in errors made while a negative value represents reductions in errors made.

• 

  Fig. 6. Johnson-Neyman pubertal development and age interaction plot predicting change in error rates.