The resulting resting-state networks are highly consistent between subjects including the so-called default-mode network (Damoiseaux et al. 2006)—as well as highly consistent between task and resting conditions (Smith et al. 2009).
This component was associated with differences between task and no-task conditions and therefore was understood to reflect the deployment of task-specific attention.
However, the extent to which these regions were activated nevertheless differed between tasks and action observation conditions.
No significant interactions were found between task, speed condition and group (ps > .05).05
Latency (TD, 20.2 ± 2.2 ms; ND, 20.1 ± 1.6 ms) and SP durations (TD, 70 ± 29 ms, ND, 77 ± 30 ms) did not differ between task conditions, and no interaction was found with discrimination performance (F1,14 < 1, p > 0.1).
Colocalization between BOLD changes and electrophysiology was assessed for significant changes on three comparisons between PA task and control conditions: PA compared with its fixation control, PA compared with ID and the PA fixation difference compared with the ID fixation difference.
Individual effects of interest (i.e., main effects of condition, direct comparisons between tasks, and intra-individual modulations by performance) were tested by linear contrasts, generating statistical parametric maps [SPM(T)].
To rule out the possibility that the expected effects of increased attentional demand in the FEF and posterior parietal regions were primarily due to an increase in the number of saccades we recorded eye movements during the fMRI experiment and estimated differences in oculomotor activity between task conditions, in particular the ES and DS search conditions.
There was no difference in the event-monitoring performance between the individual task and Dual-task conditions (pairwise t test: t(11) = 0.23, p =��0.83).
