Cide event; Figure 1B) and watching the stimulation be administered (Video

Cide event; Figure 1B) and watching the stimulation be administered (Video event; Figure 1B). Activated voxels were identified using an event-related statistical model representing each of the experimental events, convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function and mean-corrected. Six head-motion parameters defined by the realignment were added to the model as regressors of no interest. For each fMRI experiment, contrast images for the LT-253 site Decide and Video events were Necrostatin-1 site calculated using GLMs and separately entered into full factorial analyses of variances (ANOVAs). For group statistics, ANOVAs were used. For all three tasks (Real PvG, Imagine PvG and Non-Moral), the Decide event and the Video event were used in the following contrasts: (i) Real PvG > Imagine PvG, (ii) Imagine PvG > Real PvG and (iii) Real PvG > Non-Moral. A parametric regression analysis was used to explore which brain regions showed a correlation with Money Kept across the Real PvG task. We used a 1? parametric regressor weighted to the money chosen per trialcorresponding to the VAS scale used during the Decide event (Figure 1C). No significant activity was found for a parametric regression analysis for the Imagine PvG task. We report activity at P < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple spatial comparisons across the whole brain and P < 0.05 Family Wise Error (FWE) corrected for the following a priori regions of interest (ROIs; attained by independent coordinates): anterior insula, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), medial and dorso-medial PFC (mPFC; dmPFC), hippocampus, temporoparietal junction (TPJ), amygdala and dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC). Coordinates were taken from previous related studies1. RESULTS Behavioral results Our study was motivated by the observation that moral action does not always reflect moral principle. Based on this, we anticipated that when the opportunity for making real money was salient, participants would favor financial self-interest (at the expense of the Receiver's pain) more during the real condition when compared with the hypothetical condition. This prediction was confirmed with subjects keeping significantly more money in the Real (?5.77, s.d. ?.56) vs Imagine PvG task (?4.45, s.d. ?.94; t ?2.52; P ?0.025; paired samples t-test, two-tailed; Figure 1D). Importantly, subjects showed no obvious strategy acquisition effects for keeping money over time (see Supplementary Analysis for details). There was no significant correlation between their ratings of the believability of the task and their behavioral performance (Money Kept), r ??.22, P > 0.1. Furthermore, amount of Money Kept could not be explained by subjects modifying their decisions in response to reputation management or feelings of being watched (Landsberger, 1958; r ?0.284; P ?0.325, see Supplementary Methods for details). Self-reported distress ratings following the viewing of the Video event revealed that the Real PvG was no more distressing than imagining the painful stimulations in the Imagine PvG task (t ?0.13; P ?0.89; paired samples t-test, two-tailed;1 We used a priori coordinates to define ROI in our analysis. All ROIs were selected on the basis of independent coordinates using a sphere of 6-10 mm (sphere size was defined by the corresponding structure) and corrected at P < 0.05 FWE and were attained through MarsBaRs. Peak voxels are presented in the tables at P < 0.001 uncorrected and images are shown at P < 0.005 uncorrected.SCAN (2012)Table 1 Decide event of Real PvG contras.Cide event; Figure 1B) and watching the stimulation be administered (Video event; Figure 1B). Activated voxels were identified using an event-related statistical model representing each of the experimental events, convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function and mean-corrected. Six head-motion parameters defined by the realignment were added to the model as regressors of no interest. For each fMRI experiment, contrast images for the Decide and Video events were calculated using GLMs and separately entered into full factorial analyses of variances (ANOVAs). For group statistics, ANOVAs were used. For all three tasks (Real PvG, Imagine PvG and Non-Moral), the Decide event and the Video event were used in the following contrasts: (i) Real PvG > Imagine PvG, (ii) Imagine PvG > Real PvG and (iii) Real PvG > Non-Moral. A parametric regression analysis was used to explore which brain regions showed a correlation with Money Kept across the Real PvG task. We used a 1? parametric regressor weighted to the money chosen per trialcorresponding to the VAS scale used during the Decide event (Figure 1C). No significant activity was found for a parametric regression analysis for the Imagine PvG task. We report activity at P < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple spatial comparisons across the whole brain and P < 0.05 Family Wise Error (FWE) corrected for the following a priori regions of interest (ROIs; attained by independent coordinates): anterior insula, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), medial and dorso-medial PFC (mPFC; dmPFC), hippocampus, temporoparietal junction (TPJ), amygdala and dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC). Coordinates were taken from previous related studies1. RESULTS Behavioral results Our study was motivated by the observation that moral action does not always reflect moral principle. Based on this, we anticipated that when the opportunity for making real money was salient, participants would favor financial self-interest (at the expense of the Receiver's pain) more during the real condition when compared with the hypothetical condition. This prediction was confirmed with subjects keeping significantly more money in the Real (?5.77, s.d. ?.56) vs Imagine PvG task (?4.45, s.d. ?.94; t ?2.52; P ?0.025; paired samples t-test, two-tailed; Figure 1D). Importantly, subjects showed no obvious strategy acquisition effects for keeping money over time (see Supplementary Analysis for details). There was no significant correlation between their ratings of the believability of the task and their behavioral performance (Money Kept), r ??.22, P > 0.1. Furthermore, amount of Money Kept could not be explained by subjects modifying their decisions in response to reputation management or feelings of being watched (Landsberger, 1958; r ?0.284; P ?0.325, see Supplementary Methods for details). Self-reported distress ratings following the viewing of the Video event revealed that the Real PvG was no more distressing than imagining the painful stimulations in the Imagine PvG task (t ?0.13; P ?0.89; paired samples t-test, two-tailed;1 We used a priori coordinates to define ROI in our analysis. All ROIs were selected on the basis of independent coordinates using a sphere of 6-10 mm (sphere size was defined by the corresponding structure) and corrected at P < 0.05 FWE and were attained through MarsBaRs. Peak voxels are presented in the tables at P < 0.001 uncorrected and images are shown at P < 0.005 uncorrected.SCAN (2012)Table 1 Decide event of Real PvG contras.