Intervals between target and TMS pulse were measured by SOAs, spa

Intervals between target and TMS pulse were measured by SOAs, spaced in 50 msec increments from −150 to +150 msec (negative SOAs indicate forward masking, and positive SOAs indicate backward masking). Prior to target presentation, a fixation symbol (a small cross) was presented for 200 msec. The target was presented for 200 msec, with response time and inter-stimulus interval of 5000 msec. These Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical parameters were similar to those used in prior studies of affect perception (Vuilleumier et al. 2003; Holmes et al. 2005; Pourtois et al. 2005). A schematic representation of the protocol is depicted in Figure 1. Participants were seated

1 m away from the computer monitor, and the TMS coil was positioned at the hotspot. To establish a baseline performance, a block of 25 trials without a TMS pulse was

Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical administered at the beginning of the procedure. The order of stimuli administration was fully randomized across the 10 actors, four emotions, three spatial frequencies, and seven SOAs (three forward, three backward, and no TMS), with a total of 96 trials per SOA. Data analysis Analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were conducted to examine the effects of TMS, spatial frequency, and SOAs. The within-subjects design was structured as a 3 (spatial Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical frequency: high vs. low vs. broad) by 7 (SOAs: −150, −100, −50, 50, 100, 150, no TMS) ANOVA. The primary interest was in the spatial frequency by SOA interaction.

Results To validate our hotspot positioning, we compared performance on letter trigram identification with TMS (at 100 msec SOA) BMS-354825 price against a no-TMS condition with the coil held over the determined hotspot. Pairwise t-test analyses revealed that participants performed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical significantly worse when a single TMS pulse was administered at the hotspot (M = 14.3 out of 30, SD = 4.44) than in the no-TMS condition (M = 25.3, SD = 2.53), t(26) = 12.3, P < 0.001. The magnitude of the difference between the means was very large (Cohen's d = 3.04). Figure 2 presents performance on the Emotion Identification Task. The repeated measures ANOVA Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical revealed a significant main effect of spatial frequency (F(2,52) = 49.8, P < 0.001), SOA (F(6156) = 13.4, Cediranib (AZD2171) P < 0.001), as well as a spatial frequency by SOA interaction (F(12,312) = 3.19, P < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons of the main effect of spatial frequency indicated that in the BSF condition participants performed significantly better than in either the LSF condition (P < 0.01) or the HSF condition (P < 0.01). Additionally, participants performed significantly better in the LSF condition than in the HSF condition (P < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of the main effect of SOA revealed that participants performed significantly better in the no-TMS condition than in all other conditions (P < 0.005), confirming the significant effect of TMS masking across all spatial frequency conditions.

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>