Limits...
Interpreting response time effects in functional imaging studies.

Taylor JS, Rastle K, Davis MH - Neuroimage (2014)

Bottom Line: However, even for contrasts designed to tap neural effort, activity remained after factoring out the RT-BOLD response correlation.This may reveal unpredicted differences in neural engagement (e.g., learning phonological forms for pseudowords>words) that could further the development of cognitive models of reading aloud.Our framework provides a theoretically well-grounded and easily implemented method for analysing and interpreting RT effects in neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham TW20 0EX, UK. Electronic address: j.taylor@rhul.ac.uk.

Show MeSH
Brain regions showing differential activation for contrasts of interest in Model 1, which did not include an RT covariate. The left and right hemisphere slices show whole-brain activations at p < .001 voxel-wise uncorrected and p < .05 FWE cluster corrected for 22 participants. Red = [words − pseudowords], blue = [pseudowords − words], green = [irregular − regular words], yellow = [regular − irregular words], cyan = overlap between [pseudowords − words] and [irregular − regular words]. Panels contain plots showing activity (mean BOLD parameter estimate, arbitrary units) at peak voxels from contrasts of interests for each item type: blue = pseudowords, green = irregular words, yellow = regular words. All error bars in this and subsequent figures use standard error appropriate for within-participant designs (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Contrasts of interest represented by each panel are as follows: A) [words − pseudowords], B) [pseudowords − words], C) [irregular − regular words], D) [regular − irregular words].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4121088&req=5

f0015: Brain regions showing differential activation for contrasts of interest in Model 1, which did not include an RT covariate. The left and right hemisphere slices show whole-brain activations at p < .001 voxel-wise uncorrected and p < .05 FWE cluster corrected for 22 participants. Red = [words − pseudowords], blue = [pseudowords − words], green = [irregular − regular words], yellow = [regular − irregular words], cyan = overlap between [pseudowords − words] and [irregular − regular words]. Panels contain plots showing activity (mean BOLD parameter estimate, arbitrary units) at peak voxels from contrasts of interests for each item type: blue = pseudowords, green = irregular words, yellow = regular words. All error bars in this and subsequent figures use standard error appropriate for within-participant designs (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Contrasts of interest represented by each panel are as follows: A) [words − pseudowords], B) [pseudowords − words], C) [irregular − regular words], D) [regular − irregular words].

Mentions: Unless otherwise stated all reported results were significant at p < .001 whole brain voxel-wise uncorrected, and p < .05 cluster-level family wise error (FWE) corrected. Contrasts of parameter estimates are displayed on slices of the MNI canonical brain in Figs. 3, 4, and 5.


Interpreting response time effects in functional imaging studies.

Taylor JS, Rastle K, Davis MH - Neuroimage (2014)

Brain regions showing differential activation for contrasts of interest in Model 1, which did not include an RT covariate. The left and right hemisphere slices show whole-brain activations at p < .001 voxel-wise uncorrected and p < .05 FWE cluster corrected for 22 participants. Red = [words − pseudowords], blue = [pseudowords − words], green = [irregular − regular words], yellow = [regular − irregular words], cyan = overlap between [pseudowords − words] and [irregular − regular words]. Panels contain plots showing activity (mean BOLD parameter estimate, arbitrary units) at peak voxels from contrasts of interests for each item type: blue = pseudowords, green = irregular words, yellow = regular words. All error bars in this and subsequent figures use standard error appropriate for within-participant designs (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Contrasts of interest represented by each panel are as follows: A) [words − pseudowords], B) [pseudowords − words], C) [irregular − regular words], D) [regular − irregular words].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4121088&req=5

f0015: Brain regions showing differential activation for contrasts of interest in Model 1, which did not include an RT covariate. The left and right hemisphere slices show whole-brain activations at p < .001 voxel-wise uncorrected and p < .05 FWE cluster corrected for 22 participants. Red = [words − pseudowords], blue = [pseudowords − words], green = [irregular − regular words], yellow = [regular − irregular words], cyan = overlap between [pseudowords − words] and [irregular − regular words]. Panels contain plots showing activity (mean BOLD parameter estimate, arbitrary units) at peak voxels from contrasts of interests for each item type: blue = pseudowords, green = irregular words, yellow = regular words. All error bars in this and subsequent figures use standard error appropriate for within-participant designs (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Contrasts of interest represented by each panel are as follows: A) [words − pseudowords], B) [pseudowords − words], C) [irregular − regular words], D) [regular − irregular words].
Mentions: Unless otherwise stated all reported results were significant at p < .001 whole brain voxel-wise uncorrected, and p < .05 cluster-level family wise error (FWE) corrected. Contrasts of parameter estimates are displayed on slices of the MNI canonical brain in Figs. 3, 4, and 5.

Bottom Line: However, even for contrasts designed to tap neural effort, activity remained after factoring out the RT-BOLD response correlation.This may reveal unpredicted differences in neural engagement (e.g., learning phonological forms for pseudowords>words) that could further the development of cognitive models of reading aloud.Our framework provides a theoretically well-grounded and easily implemented method for analysing and interpreting RT effects in neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham TW20 0EX, UK. Electronic address: j.taylor@rhul.ac.uk.

Show MeSH