69, MSE = .30, p < .01, partial η2 = .64. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons suggested that there were significant differences (all ps < .01) between all of the groups in SM (except for Groups 2 and 3, which did not differ [p > .90] and Groups 4 and 5, which did not differ [p > .17]). Importantly, the pattern of results across the three factors suggested that some of the groups demonstrated specific deficits or strengths

on one factor rather than necessarily all factors. Other groups, however, demonstrated deficits on all factors Compound C datasheet or strengths on all factors. Specifically, Group 1 consisted of low ability participants who scored below average on all three factors and tended to have the lowest overall scores on each factor. Group 2 consisted of individuals who were above average on both capacity and AC, but were relatively weak on SM. In fact, this

group had some of the strongest AC scores. Thus, this group demonstrated clear strengths on capacity and AC, but slight deficits on SM. Group 3 consisted of individuals who were close to average on all three factors. Group 4, demonstrated below average capacity and weak to average AC, but above average SM. In fact, this group demonstrated some of the strongest SM scores. Thus, this group seems to be the exact opposite of Group 2 with these individuals demonstrating strengths in SM, but deficits in capacity and somewhat in AC. Indeed, as noted in Footnote 3 this group had some of the lowest K estimates. Finally, Group 5 consisted of high

ability participants who scored high on all three factors and Dolutegravir tended to have the highest overall scores on each factor. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the groups tended to differ in their levels of WM storage, WM processing, and gF. Specifically, examining WM storage suggested a significant Protirelin difference between the groups, F(4, 166) = 7.22, MSE = .75, p < .01, partial η2 = .15, with Group 1 scoring generally below the other groups and Group 5 scoring above the other groups. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons suggested that Group 1 scored significantly lower on WM storage than all other groups (all ps < .05) except for Group 3 (p > .19). Groups 2 and 4 only differed from Group 1 (all other p’s > .52) and Group 3 only differed from Group 5 (all other p’s > .19). Examining WM processing suggested a significant difference between the groups, F(4, 166) = 6.87, MSE = .71, p < .01, partial η2 = .15, with Groups 2 and 5 having faster WM processing times than the other groups. Specifically, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons suggested that Groups 2 and 5 differed from the other groups (all p’s < .01), but did not differ from one another (p > .90). Furthermore, the other groups did not differ from one another (all p’s > .90). Thus, both groups that scored high on AC had the fastest WM processing times. Finally, examining gF suggested a significant difference between the groups, F(4, 166) = 14.04, MSE = .53, p < .