DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04811.004 We simulate the model in an artificial environment where on every trial, the agent can choose between initiating a tolerance response and doing nothing, upon observing a cue.
Crucially, we observed a significant cue × %CV interaction effect (F1.9,26.6 = 9.5, P = 0.001) reflecting a differential impact of %CV on valid and invalid trials (Fig. 5).
As before, the main effect of %CV was not significant but we observed a significant cue × %CV interaction effect (F1.99,29.88 = 4.7, P = 0.017).
Increased activation in the right prefrontal cortex is observed when a cue successfully retrieves a studied item [ 12, 14- 16].
Contrary to our expectations, we observed a drop in post-cue performance at the longest cue latency [F 3,17) = 8.524, p <.01].
By manipulating the intensity of the alerting cue, we further observed a positive relationship between alerting intensity and processing speed, which was not seen for the threshold of conscious perception (Experiment 2).
The key statistics of these analyses are summarized below: In all three time windows (100 400, 400 700, and 700 1000 ms after cue onset), we observed a significant, positive relationship between reward and spatial-reward selectivity indices (linear regression, p<10−32).
We observed all cue tests using two infrared-illuminated Sony Nightshot camcorders, one filming straight on and the other at 90 degrees (Figure 1), to resolve any ambiguous observations.
Since the activation is observed even when a cue fails to retrieve the primed stimulus, it is generally associated with retrieval attempt, rather than the retrieval itself [ 12, 14, 15].
Given the topographical differences that we observed between pro-cue and retro-cue trials, these interactions between cue-type and electrode position may have reflected primarily topographical differences.
