AskMedial rostral PFC Table 4 Regions displaying substantial Task x Phase interactions
AskMedial rostral PFC Table 4 Regions displaying considerable Job x Phase interactions (P 0.05 corrected for wholebrain volume). Brodmann Regions (BAs) are approximateRegion BA Hemisphere x R L L R R R y z Zmax Voxels 222 2 5 28 48SCAN (2007)Alphabet (SO SI) Spatial (SO SI) Lateral occipitotemporal cortex 37 37 Spatial (SO SI) Alphabet (SO SI) Lateral premotor cortex six Superior parietal cortex 7 Lateral occipital cortex 9 Medial occipital cortex54 eight 7.0 0 0 2 five.0 six 22 4 30 0 0 six 46 60 eight six five.0 5.4 six.4 7.Table 5 Imply correlation coefficients in between medial rostral PFC contrast estimatesAlphabet activity Interest Alphabet job Spatial taskSpatial process Focus 0.34 0.04 Mentalizing 0.03 0.7. Mentalizing 0. Focus Mentalizing Interest Mentalizing P 0.0005.P 0.05.(AlphabetSpatial). There have been no regions displaying significant Activity Mentalizing activations, suggesting that the mentalizing manipulation had similar effects in the two tasks. In the Job x Phase analyses (Table 4), various posterior brain regions showed significant activations. There was bilateral activation in lateral occipitotemporal cortex, which showed a greater difference among the SO and SI circumstances inside the Alphabet job than the Spatial activity. The reverse contrast revealed activation in left lateral premotor cortex, right superior parietal cortex and widespread activation in medial and lateral occipital cortex, all of which showed a greater difference between the SO and SI situations inside the Spatial process than the Alphabet process. It vital to note that the Activity Phase interactions failed to reveal any considerable voxels in medial prefrontal cortex. Within the behavioral data, there was a substantial difference in reaction time amongst SO and SI situations inside the Alphabet activity, but not the Spatial task. This resulted inside a extremely significant Activity Phase interaction [F(,five) 30; P 0). If differences in BOLD signal amongst the SO and SI situations reflected these behavioral differences (e.g. because of the influence of `task difficulty’), a equivalent Process Phase interaction will be expected inside the BOLD data. Nonetheless, even at a threshold of P 0.05 uncorrected, none of your 3 MPFC regions identified by the SO SI contrast showed such an interaction. Additionally, even within the Spatial activity, where there was no considerable distinction in reaction time amongst the SO and SI phases, there wasa significant difference in BOLD signal PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23637907 in all 3 of those regions [F(,5) 3, P 0.003). In neither task was there a substantial correlation amongst behavioral differences among SO and SI RQ-00000007 web conditions and also the corresponding BOLD variations in any of those three regions (r 0.3, P 0.26). As a result, the present outcomes can’t be explained just by differences in task difficulty between conditions. Finally, we analyzed the degree to which signal in medial rostral PFC (defined utilizing precisely the same coordinates as above) generalized from one particular process towards the other. For every single participant we extracted signal at every single voxel within this region for each of the 4 orthogonal contrasts resulting in the factorial crossing of Activity and Contrast (i.e. Alphabet Interest, Alphabet Mentalizing, Spatial Attention, Spatial Mentalizing). Because we had been interested in the spatial distribution of responses to each of these contrasts, instead of the all round level of activity, the outcomes for each and every contrast were normalized to ensure that all through medial rostral PFC there was a mean response of zero, with normal deviation of one. We then cal.