e., 200 ms). By contrast, in-scanner judgments involved only two durations (ΔT1 and ΔT2), but now using multiple standards (100, 200, and 400 ms). Nonetheless, on average, both procedures revealed the expected effect of training with a decrease of the ΔT1 threshold and increased accuracy for the fixed ΔT2 condition in the scanner (see Figures 1B and 1C). Concerning possible differences in http://www.selleckchem.com/products/JNJ-26481585.html the reliability of the two indexes, we should emphasize that both indexes were estimated using an equivalent number of trials: 60 trials for

the ΔT1 threshold outside the scanner and 64 trials for “200 ms & ΔT2” in-scanner condition. For this reason we do not think that differences in reliability can explain the lack of correlation Apoptosis Compound Library price between the two indexes. To summarize, at behavioral level we have shown that visual time learning was specific to the trained duration (i.e., 200 ms), and that learning generalized from the visual to the auditory modality in the majority of the subjects (i.e., 11 out of the 13 “visual learners”). The analyses of the functional imaging data aimed to identify

areas where activity changed between pre- and posttraining session, specifically for the trained duration (i.e., 200 ms). Accordingly, we tested for the corresponding “condition by training” interaction: (200 – 400) post > (200 − 400) pre. For the visual modality, this revealed a cluster in the left posterior insula (xyz = −32 −15 18, p-FWE < 0.05 cluster level corrected, see Figure 2A and

Table 2). The signal plot in Figure 2A (left-most plot, with blue bars) shows that this area was more active in post- compared to pretraining, both in ΔT1 and ΔT2 conditions. Moreover, the posttraining activation of this area (“200 – 400 ms” difference in ΔT2 condition) tended to correlate positively with the corresponding subject-specific learning index (R = 0.43, p = 0.07; see Figure 2A, right-most plot). For the auditory modality, the “condition by training” interaction revealed significant activation of the left inferior parietal cortex (see Figure 2B and Table 2). Whole-brain corrected significance these was found only in the ΔT2 conditions (xyz = −44 −51 48, p-FWE < 0.05, cluster level corrected), but at a lower threshold an analogous pattern of activation was also found for ΔT1 condition, see also left-most plot (red bars) in Figure 2B and additional tests reported in Table 2. Also in this area, we found that the level of activation in the posttraining session correlated positively with the subject-specific learning index (R = 0.51, p = 0.03; see Figure 2B, right-most plot). To further explore possible learning effects common to the visual and the auditory modalities, we tested for auditory learning in the insula and for visual learning in the inferior parietal cortex. Using these restricted volumes of interest and testing statistically independent contrasts (i.e., auditory learning in a visually identified area, i.e.