Table 6.

ROI analysis

Region of interestSizeClassification (d′)Correlation (rf)
Felt → seenSeen → felt
Left AIns190.09 [±0.07]**0.09 [±0.05]***0.14 [±0.07]***✓
Right AIns21850.12 [±0.05]***0.15 [±0.07]***0.10 [±0.07]**✓
Left MIns32290.04 [±0.06]0.03 [±0.06]∼0 [±0.06]
Right MIns47340.07 [±0.04]**0.04 [±0.05]*0.06 [±0.05]*✓
MCC34180.06 [±0.06]*0.07 [±0.04]***0.07 [±0.08]*✓
Left PCG/SMG32510.03 [±0.06]0.06 [±0.07]*0.06 [±0.08]
Right PCG/SMG36640.03 [±0.06]0.04 [±0.03]**0.05 [±0.09]
Midbrain3250.06 [±0.05]**0.06 [±0.10]0.02 [±0.07]
Left ventral occipital cortex3497∼0 [±0.05]∼0 [±0.02]−0.05 [±0.07]
Right ventral occipital cortex3154−0.02 [±0.04]∼0 [±0.02]−0.06 [±0.08]

  • ↵Each ROI is described in terms of the functional contrast defining it (e.g., noxious > non-noxious in conjunction with [∩] NegPainful > NeuPainful), the number of consecutive voxels comprehending it, their associated average d′ and rf values (brackets refer to 95% confidence intervals), the significance (***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05) of permutation-based one-sample t test testing for d′ and rf > 0, and whether these tests yielded to significant effects consistent across all MVPA approaches (✓).

  • ROI defined by the analysis 1classification: seen → felt ∩ correlation; 2classification: felt → seen ∩ seen → felt; and 3noxious > non-noxious ∩ NegPainful > NeuPainful. 4Same effects with either noxious > non-noxious ∩ NegPainful > NeuPainful or noxious > non-noxious ∩ NegPainful > NegPainless, although the former ROI (1099 voxels) also involves portions of AIns.