Table 2.

Regional responses to AV in the group-level MVB analysis

ROI	p value					Exceedance probability (distributed > local)
ROI	AV	AV orthogonalised to Act	AVrej	Q_R	Q_L	Exceedance probability (distributed > local)
vmPFC, right	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
vmPFC, left	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Putamen, right	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Putamen, left	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
NA, right	0.609	—	—	—	—	—
NA, left	0.522	—	—	—	—	—
Insula, right	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Insula, left	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Thalamus, right	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Thalamus, left	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	>0.999
Hippocampus, right	0.029	0.012	0.144	<0.001	0.019	>0.999
Hippocampus, left	0.182	—	—	—	—	—
Amygdala, right	0.609	—	—	—	—	—
Amygdala, left	0.574	—	—	—	—	—
SN/VTA	0.325	—	—	—	—	—

Bilateral vmPFC, putamen, insula, and thalamus showed a significant response to AV, as did the right hippocampus. All areas showing a significant response to AV survived a check analysis where the model included a binary choice regressor (Act). Action-specific rejected value signals (AVrej) were present in all regions, as was information about both the value of the right action (Q_R) and the left action (Q_L). In all regions, Bayesian model selection strongly favored distributed models, suggesting that the coding of AV lacks clear spatial clustering. Bold text indicates decoding that was significant at a threshold of p < 0.05, FDR-corrected. We only present FDR-corrected results for AV, since the other analyses are post hoc analyses designed to either check or qualify our inferences.