Results include a relatively small cluster of activation in right visual regions for “real feedback > no feedback,” no significant activation for “real feedback > false feedback,” and relatively extensive activation with maximum in right visual, right caudate, and left putamen regions for “false feedback > real feedback” (clusters and local maximum are listed in Table S3). With intermittent

feedback scans only, the lower level contrast of “Feedback (2 volume blocks)—Rest (9 volume blocks)” is shown in Figure 5 for higher level contrasts of “all intermittent scans,”“real feedback > false feedback,” and “false feedback > real feedback.” The analysis included learn more 8 scan sessions (16 scans total), analyzed using a multisession (fixed effects) and multisubject (mixed effects) three level analysis for “all intermittent scans” (top); and a two-sample paired t-test (mixed effects) for “real feedback > false feedback” and “false feedback > real feedback” contrasts. Results include a relatively extensive cluster of activation for all intermittent scans, no significant activation

for “real feedback > false feedback,” and activation with maximum in right cingulate, right frontal, right temporal, and right parietal regions for “false feedback > real feedback” (clusters and local maximum are listed in http://www.selleckchem.com/EGFR(HER).html Table S4). Our main hypothesis was that participants would generate greater activation in premotor

cortex when given intermittent feedback than they would when given continuous feedback. Using a post-hoc analysis similar to the real-time processing, 4 of 8 participants had significantly higher PSC with intermittent feedback (real feedback compared to the false feedback control condition). This compares to only 2 of 10 participants having higher PSC with continuous feedback, and additionally 4 of 10 participants having significantly worse PSC with continuous feedback. For continuous feedback, the significant decreases in PSC with real feedback relative to false feedback may be due in part to incorrect interpretation of feedback. The false feedback may have provided use feedback at times by random chance, whereas real feedback could be consistently unhelpful, if the hemodynamic delay is no properly accounted MCE公司 for by the participant. Another advantage of the intermittent approach is that the brain regions involved in evaluating feedback can be uniquely separated in time from task performance (see Fig 5). Given the extensive brain activation implicated in evaluated feedback, continuous feedback during task performance could be confounding and interfere with RTfMRIf objectives. The phenomenon of evaluation feedback itself may be a worthwhile research area. Notably false feedback generated much brain activation relative to real feedback, potentially related to task switching, and feedback appraisal.