This analysis revealed a significant increase in activity on trials where BE occurred as early as 2–4 sec following the first scene onset (collapsed across hemisphere: HC t = 2.11, p = .02; PHC t = 1.94, p = .03), indicating that this is an early response that likely occurred soon after stimulus onset ( Fig. 5A and B). Given that the shortest delay between the onset of the first and second scene presentations was 3.45 sec (occurring on one third of the trials due to the jittered delay), we can conclude with some certainty that this effect during the 2–4 sec time-window can only be attributed to a process occurring in response to the first scene.

Furthermore, given that the BOLD signal lags behind cognitive processes with a peak response at around 6 sec after stimulus presentation, this early response at 2–4 sec suggests a rapid response to the first stimulus. Due to the limited temporal resolution of fMRI, Trametinib cell line Lumacaftor manufacturer it is not possible to determine whether the signal can be attributed to a process occurring online, during perception of the scene, or shortly after the stimulus offset. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the BE-related activity occurred in response to the first scene, prior to the onset of the second scene, which was the critical question of interest here. These results clearly implicate both the HC and PHC in BE. Our hypothesis

was that the HC plays a central role in the BE effect, because patients with damage localised to the HC show reductions in BE (Mullally et al., 2012). It was therefore important to tease apart the functional contributions of these two regions by investigating the neural dynamics occurring during the BE effect. If our hypothesis was correct, then we would expect the HC to be driving the activity of the PHC. The flow of information between these two regions was assessed using DCM (see Section 2.8), a Bayesian model comparison method in which different models of the neural dynamics are compared in order to find the most likely model of information flow in

the brain (Friston et al., 2003). For this analysis, we used a simple approach which involved investigating PD184352 (CI-1040) the connectivity between the two ROIs, the HC and PHC. We conducted this analysis separately in both hemispheres, and used a random effects Bayesian model comparison method to determine which was the winning model (Stephan et al., 2009, 2010). The winning model was the backward modulation model, in which the HC drove activity within the PHC, and this was the case for both hemispheres independently (exceedance probability for the backward model was 60% in the right, and 51% in the left hemisphere; Fig. 5C). This result suggests that the HC is the driving force behind the BE effect, which then influences activity within the PHC.