Random effect was always subject The first analysis included th

Random effect was always subject. The first analysis included the two fixed effects attention (attention-modulation-free

condition, distraction, concentration) and motor task (both hands, dominant hand, nondominant hand), which were tested with F-tests. In the case of a significant attention effect, post hoc tests were performed with t-tests comparing distraction versus attention-modulation-free condition and concentration versus attention-modulation-free condition. For the post hoc tests, we were interested in the task-positive as well as the task-negative effects. Therefore, we analyzed not only the attention-related increase in activation expected in the dorsal attention network Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical but also the decrease in activation expected in the ventral default network. The second random-effect analysis included the fixed effect divided concentration (concentration on dominant or nondominant hand while moving both index fingers), which was tested with t-tests. Data were normalized using the percent signal change transformation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical in Brainvoyager. For both Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical handedness groups, P-value

thresholds were set to <0.001 and minimum cluster sizes were set to 50 voxel. By using a threshold of <0.001 instead of a more stringent Bonferroni correction, we account for the smaller sample size and therefore less power of the left-hander group. In the case of missing data from an experimental condition, we excluded subjects from the whole-brain Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical analysis (right-hander, n = 2; left-hander, n = 1). Behavioral data analysis

Behavioral data, namely main tapping frequency ascertained by fast Fourier transformation of the time series of button presses (frequency with the highest amplitude between 0.5 and 3.5 Hz) and mean standard deviation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of the tapping event in relation to the occurrence of the sound, were analyzed with the same four mixed models used for the ROI analyses. In all CDK inhibitor analyses of the behavioral data, subject was the random effect. For one-hand movements, fixed effect was attention type, whereas also for bimanual movements, fixed effects were moving finger and attention type and the interaction term between moving finger and attention type. The fixed effects of the full models were tested with F-tests. In the case of missing data from an experimental condition, we excluded subjects from the subanalysis (right-hander nondominant hand, n = 1; dominant hand, n = 1; both hand undivided attention, n = 2; both hand divided attention, n = 1; left-hander nondominant hand, n = 1; dominant hand, n = 1; both hand undivided attention, n = 1). Mixed-model calculations for the behavioral data analyses were performed with the nlme package (Pinheiro et al. 2012) in R 2.14.0 (R Development Core Team 2011). Reported significance levels are corrected for eight independent tests.

This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>