Ment task adverse words neutral words good words Totally free Eupatilin recall correcta
Ment activity negative words neutral words optimistic words Cost-free recall correcta damaging words neutral words constructive words Recognition process correct damaging words neutral words optimistic wordsaBPD (n 30) otherreference AM SD ( no reference AM SD ( selfreference AM SD ( otherreference AM SD (selfreference AM SD (SD (two.06 0.9 two.0.73 0.33 0.two.06 0.44 2.0.86 0.34 0..76 0.9 .0.72 0.four 0.2.2 0.02 .0.65 0.54 .two.28 0.02 0.0.73 0.67 ..65 0.72 0.06 .0 0.56 .9.52 six.94 two.7.69 6.99 7.0.67 9.59 6.8.89 7.4 9.0.42 0.77 3.8.06 9.two 8.0.00 six.23 three.9.24 six.2 .3.3 0.87 6..64 9.65 0.eight.87 eight.7.eight 7.two.63 0.70.50 73.7 77.5.99 7.54 7.7.67 70.50 78.5.39 9.27 four.68.33 67.83 78.0.85 8.08 6.74.67 77.7 79.eight.89 four.00 5.73.7 74.50 77.8.78 7.44 20.7.83 7.4 75.50 six.73 78.33 5.of all appropriately recalled wordsdoi:0.37journal.pone.07083.tsignificant, but interpretability was restricted due to the larger order interaction (see Table 3). All effects were replicated when computing a comparable repeated measures ANCOVA with medication status (psychotropic medication or not) as covariate (three way interaction: F2,36 three.49, p 0.026, .06), even though no substantial group difference was observed within the post hoc test for neutral words with no reference.Recall taskBPD sufferers did not differ from HC in all round recall efficiency (HC AM six.90 0.03 SD; BPD AM six.7 9.30 SD; U 430.50, Z .29, p .773). The elements valence and reference influenced recall overall performance (most important impact valence F2,six 6 p0.00, 0.22, primary impact reference F2,six 4.67, p 0.0, 0.08), on the other hand, these effects have been not modulated by the factor group: constructive words had been recalled greater than neutral and damaging words and recall was greater for words with selfreference than words with no reference, but not statistically distinguishable from recall of words 
with otherreference. All effects have been replicated when computing a comparable repeated measures ANCOVA with medication status as covariate (main effect valence F2,4 9.55, p0.00, 0.four, primary effect reference F2,four five.73, p 0.004, 0.09).Recognition taskRecognition efficiency evaluation revealed a important valence effect (F,00 3.667, p.00, .9): constructive words had been remembered greater than neutral and adverse words. There had been neither considerable key effects for reference or group nor interactions amongst thesePLOS 1 DOI:0.37journal.pone.07083 January 22,six SelfReference in BPDFigure . Word appraisal depending on referential context and word valence. Valence ratings of nouns depending on valence and referential context for healthful controls (HC) and sufferers with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). p.0, p.0, p.00. doi:0.37journal.pone.07083.gfactors (see Table three). A repeated measures ANCOVA with medication status as covariate revealed similar final results (main effect valence F2,four 0.767, p0.00, 0.6).Attributional styleStatistical evaluation revealed variations involving BPD individuals and HCs modulated by both the valence with the events at the same time as the attributional dimension (3way interaction (F,94 six.556, p .003, 0.08). BPD patients assessed the causes for unfavorable events as additional internal,Table three. Benefits of the repeated measures ANOVA of word valence ratings with group (healthful controls, Borderline Personality Disorder patients), valence (negative, neutral, optimistic) and reference (short article, selfreference, PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368524 otherreference). Valence judgment task: repeated measures ANOVA of word ratings F Principal effect group Key impact valence Key impact reference Interaction group x valence In.