For this analysis too, we examined whether there were any differences in the outcome measures for the 3 subgroups, using separate 2 (eye: BE and WE) × 3 (subgroups: D, E, and F) mixed factorial ANOVAs for the PRL distance from the former fovea, fixation stability, and lesion size. For the PRL distance from the former fovea, the main effect of eye (F(1,43) = 4.7,
P = 0.036, partial η
2 = 0.10), the subgroup effect (F(2,43) = 10.3,
P < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.32), and the eye × subgroup interaction effect (F(2,43) = 3.7,
P = 0.033, partial η
2 = 0.15) were all significant. Pairwise comparisons after the significant interaction revealed that in subgroup E, the PRL distance from the former fovea was significantly larger in the WE than in the BE (
P < 0.001). In addition, for the BE, the PRL distance from the former fovea was significantly larger in subgroup F than in subgroups D and E (
P < 0.001), whereas for the WE, it was only significantly larger in subgroup F than in subgroup D (
P = 0.009). For the logBCEA, the eye (F(1,43) = 19.2,
P < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.31), subgroup (F(2,43) = 4.1,
P = 0.02, partial η
2 = 0.16), and eye × subgroup (F(2,43) = 3.9,
P = 0.03, partial η
2 = 0.15) interaction effects were all significant. Pairwise comparisons after the significant interaction showed that in subgroup E, fixation stability was significantly poorer in the WE than in the BE (
P < 0.001). In addition, for the BE, fixation stability was poorer in subgroup F than in subgroup E (
P = 0.04) but the comparison between subgroup F and subgroup D failed to reach significance (
P = 0.06). Moreover, for the WE, fixation stability was better in subgroup D than in subgroup F (
P = 0.04), but the comparison between subgroup D and subgroup E failed to reach significance (
P = 0.06). Likewise, for the lesion size, the eye (F(1,43) = 47.5,
P < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.53), subgroup (F(2,43) = 51.7,
P < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.71), and eye × subgroup interaction effects (F(2,43) = 29.6,
P < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.58) were all significant. Pairwise comparisons after the significant interaction showed that in subgroup E the lesion size was significantly smaller in the WE than in the BE (
P < 0.001). In addition, for the BE, the lesion size was significantly larger in subgroup F than in subgroups D and E (
P < 0.001), whereas for the WE, it differed significantly for all subgroups (
P < 0.001). For the polar angle, we first reduced the analysis to a simple comparison for 3 groups by computing the absolute difference between the BE and WE values; the Watson-William F test was not significant, F(2,43) = 0.45,
P = 0.64. The means (±SD) of the outcome measures are shown in
Table 2. For ease of comparison with other reports, we also included the values of the polar angle as linear, along with the mean direction of the computed circular variable for the three subgroups.