Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Task and ROIs. A, Experimental paradigm. Dotted line indicates the postcue anticipatory time window (0–1000 ms) relevant for PLV analysis. Red bars represent time windows of significant differences with attention in alpha and beta bands between regions shown in B. B, Cortical ROIs. Inflated right hemisphere indicating functionally defined hSI (red dots within red ellipse) and frontal rIFC (light blue). The rIFC subregions were identified by Destrieux parcellation and are labeled rIFS and rIFJ. Control regions used to access possible volume conduction effects are colored white and included the rIPMC; rMFS; and rLOS. Lines connecting hSI and rIFC indicate regions between which significant difference in PLV emerged in the alpha or beta band.
- Figure 2.
Depiction of PLVs with the hSI across time and frequency for attend-out and attend-in attentional conditions for rIFC: rIFS (A) and rIFJ (B). In both attentional conditions, PLVs are highest in the 7–14 Hz alpha and 15–29 Hz beta frequencies, with greater values visible in the attend-out condition.
- Figure 3.
Temporal evolution of alpha and beta synchrony between hSI and rIFC in attend-in (blue) and attend-out (red) conditions. PLV data are presented between hSI and rIFS subregions. A, rIFS. B, rIFJ. Dark gray shading represents time bins exhibiting statistically significant differences across attentional conditions. Light gray shading represents statistical trends (Table 1). Statistically significant differences in the alpha band were found in an early time bin between hSI and rIFS (200–400 ms, p < 0.001) and in the beta band in a later time bin between hSI and rIFJ (600–800 ms, p < 0.01). Trend differences in alpha synchrony between hSI and rIFS continued until 600 ms (p < 0.05), and in the beta band between hSI and rIFJ until 1000 ms (p < 0.02) with a similar trend between hSI-rIFS (600–1000 ms, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in control regions around rIFC shown in Figure 1B.
- Figure 4.
Signal crosstalk of hSI in the right hemisphere. Crosstalk was low between hSI and IFC regions where significant attentional differences in synchrony were found (see Fig. 1B), suggesting that volume conduction from hSI did not drive the observed synchrony effects between hSI and rIFC.
Tables
ms bin Alpha PLV Beta PLV 0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 rIFJ 0.038** 0.176 0.383 0.438 0.656 0.743 0.350 0.941 0.0058* 0.016** rIFS 0.196 0.0009* 0.047** 0.065 0.409 0.204 0.143 0.857 0.026** 0.040** ↵aStatistical comparison of PLVs across attentional conditions. Attend-out − attend-in alpha and beta PLVs between signals from functionally defined hSI and rIFC, including rIFS and rIFJ. PLVs were averaged in 200 ms time windows after cue and compared across attentional conditions using two-tailed sign-rank tests.
↵*Significant difference (p < 0.01, using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons across five time bins).
↵**Statistical trend (p < 0.05).
ms bin Alpha power Beta power 0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 hSI 0.519 0.301 0.301 0.470 0.052 0.053 0.064 0.129 0.077 0.005* rIFJ 0.922 0.160 0.846 0.193 0.922 0.131 0.160 0.846 0.322 0.065 rIFS 0.339 0.176 0.424 0.204 0.129 0.910 0.380 0.129 0.424 0.339 ↵aStatistical comparison of differences (attend-out − attend-in) in power across attentional conditions. Power differences were assessed in functionally defined hSI, rIFS, and rIFJ. Values shown are p values from a two-tailed sign-rank test.
↵*Significant difference (p < 0.01, significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons across five time bins). No trends (p < 0.05) were observed.
