Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assumed HRF
41 ROIs
Describe Figure 5A.
CanonicaHRF
11 ROIs
More later
Slide #7 Unassumed ROI identification
Unassumed HRF
Slide #8 Average Timecourse
To see if there are any differences between ROIs, they got an average time course for each ROI.
Averaged across tasks.
So Figure 2A, shows the timecourses from dACC for each task and its average.
Slide #9 Clustering
Figure 3A
So they identified ROIs with different time courses based on accuracy. Whatever.
If they're clustered, they're similar.
Cool thing is placing ROIs into groups based on response profile.
Explain hierarchical clustering (Draw on board).
Then explain what you think they did
Multi-dimensional clustering.
Made dendogram
Dendogram was cut into three groups.
Slide #10 Error-related responses
Explain panes of Figures 3B 3E.
Leftmost pane: averaged time courses from all ROIs that were in the particular group.
Middle pane: the difference between averaged error and correct time courses.
Rightmost pane: averaged time course for high accuracy and low accuracy trials
For prolonged responses, error-related activity was larger in high accuracy tasks.
Fast response
Prolonged responses
Delayed responses
Two ROIs did not fit into any cluster.
They were able to characterize different error responses.
Slide #11 Back to ROIs
Bring back Figure 5A.
Only 11 ROIs identified with assumed HRF shape.
Look at Table 4 in paper.
Most fast ROIs were re-identified.
Some prolonged.
No delayed
They suspect that the re-identification is due to the fast response being similar to the
canonical HRF.
Slide #12 Functional connectivity
2/3 goals achieved. 1 more to go: functional connectivity and error activity.
To visualize network structure and connectivity strength, they used spring-embedded analysis.