Table 2.

ACCv, results of ANOVAs

Three-wayTwo-wayOne-way Trial type L/R
Offer typeOffer positionMov directionTrial typeMov direction(Both)
Preoffer1103000
Postoffer3423374228
Late Delay6301653048
Pre-go530145115245
React Time332133212219
Prejuice720207121362
Postjuice102081069175
Postjuice2110101120082
At least 1231641241448194
  • A total of 779 cells were recorded from ACCv and included in these analyses. The three leftmost columns report the results of a three-way ANOVA with factors (offer type by offer position by movement direction). Pooling time windows, it can be noted that neuronal activity rarely depended on the visuomotor contingencies of the choice (factor offer position and movement direction). (In particular, only 41 of 779 = 5% cells were modulated by the movement direction. Curiously, 14 of these cells came from the same penetration. If data from this penetration were excluded, cells modulated by the movement direction would be 27 of 747 = 4%.) In contrast ACCv cells were often modulated by the offer type (231 of 779 = 30% cells). Next, we ran a two-way ANOVA with factors (trial type by movement direction) (columns 4–6). The column labeled “Both” reports the number of cells for which both factors (trial type and movement direction) were significant. Again, very few neurons were modulated by either the movement direction or the interaction. Finally, we ran a one-way ANOVA with factor trial typeLR (rightmost column). Only neuronal responses that passed this test (N = 359, pooling time windows) were included in subsequent analyses.