Write results section of the scientific paper in APA, using this data below and use this example format: RT.The analysis of RT data revealed a significant effect of position, F(1.25) = 15.393, p .001, partial eta squared =.381, with higher RTs in Subtask 2 (1904 ms vs. 1745 ms) than in Subtask 3 (1745 ms). However, the effect of congruency was not statistically significant, F(1,25) =.001, p =.976, partial eta squared =.000,and there was no significant interaction between congruency and position F(1,25) = 1.402, p =.247, partial eta squared =.053.

Error rates

Interruption Costs Analysis
	Position	Mean	Standard error of the mean
Before Subtask 2	Non interrupted	5,05	4,41
Interrupted	10,24	7,02
Before Subtask 3	Non interrupted	9,71	7,34
Interrupted	10,16	8.52

Figure 3. Error Rates analysis of the interruption costs analysis

Congruency Costs Analysis
	Congruency	Mean	Standard error of the mean
Before Subtask 2	Incongruent	9,41	1,64
Congruent	11,96	2,14
Before Subtask 3	Incongruent	7,99	2,12
Congruent	9,14	1,78

Figure 4. Error Rates analysis of the congruency costs analysis

Reference:

For the RT data, the results demonstrated a significant position effect. This indicates that the position of an interruption affected the rate at which a task was completed; specifically, RTs were higher for Subtask 2 than Subtask 3. A numerical trend was observed for the unity effect, but the impact was not statistically significant. This indicates that congruency did not impact the RTs of an interrupted or uninterrupted task. In addition, the interaction between the position and congruency factors was insignificant, indicating that the RTs of a given condition were unaffected simultaneously by the position of an interruption and congruency.

The results again revealed a numerical trend of a congruence effect for the error data. Here, it was demonstrated that more errors were committed when an interruption occurred during the unstable condition. However, this effect was not statistically significant according to the RT data. A numerical trend was also observed for the primary effect of position. As with the RT data, this indicates that the location of the interruption affected the capacity to complete the task, as Subtask 2 had a higher error rate than Subtask 3. However, the effect was insignificant once more.

The analysis of error rates revealed significant effects for both the interruption factor and the interaction between position and interruption. In subtask 1, the error rate was 7.382, whereas in subtask 2, it increased to 10.199. The interaction analysis showed that the interruption cost for subtask 2 was 5%, as the error rate increased to 10.240 when interrupted, compared to 5.051 when not interrupted. Similarly, for subtask 3, the interruption cost was calculated to be (10.158 vs. 9.713).

In summary, the interruption factor had a significant effect on both reaction time and error rates. Participants exhibited higher reaction times and error rates in interrupted trials compared to non-interrupted trials. The position factor also influenced reaction times, with higher values observed in subtask 2 compared to subtask 1. The interaction between position and interruption indicated interruption costs, with varying effects depending on the subtask.

The analysis of error rates examined the effects of the interruption factor and the interaction between position and interruption on participants' error rates. The interruption factor showed a significant effect on error rates. In subtask 1, which did not involve interruptions, the error rate was 7.382. However, in subtask 2, which included interruptions, the error rate increased to 10.199. This increase in error rates indicates that interruptions negatively impacted participants' accuracy and increased the likelihood of errors.

The interaction analysis between position and interruption also revealed significant effects on error rates. For subtask 2, the interruption cost was calculated by comparing the error rate in interrupted trials (10.240) with the error rate in non-interrupted trials (5.051). This yielded an interruption cost of 5%. Similarly, for subtask 3, the interruption cost was calculated by comparing the error rates in interrupted (10.158) and non-interrupted (9.713) trials. These findings indicate that interruptions had a detrimental effect on error rates in both subtask 2 and subtask 3.