Fig 1.
Schematic depiction of the 5 models implemented.
The Cohen et al. (1990) and Mathews et al. (1998) models do not contain between-trial relationships (Fig 1A and 1B). The remaining model do, as depicted by the relationships between trial n-1 and trial n. (N = neutral, T = threat-related, F = face stimulus, S = scene stimulus, Cog = cognitive control, Neg = Negative emotion).
Fig 2.
Lesser values indicate better model fit. According to all criteria the modified Mathews et al. (1998) model fit best to the behavioral data. These values do not provide a statistical comparison between the model fits and has no variance, but they do provide a relative likelihood that one model is not actually better than the next. According to this value, the likelihood that the modified Mathews model is not actually best is 1.8 x 10−64.
Table 1.
Full description of significant clusters.
All clusters reaching statistical significance at a whole brain corrected p < 0.05 (t > = 2.807, cluster threshold 23, k = 23). Coordinates are based on the MNI templates.
Fig 3.
Neural encoding of reaction time.
Results are from a multiple regression amplitude-modulated deconvolution and depict areas where activity scaled significantly with reaction time. Positive values (orange) indicate that greater activity was associated with longer reaction times. Likewise, negative values (blue) are areas where activity was inversely related to reaction time.
Fig 4.
Neural encoding of the detection of the target stimulus.
Shown are areas that were differentially responsive to the detection of threatening versus neutral target stimuli, indicating a neural correlate of the distractor detector. Positive values (orange) indicate that a region was activated in response to the detection of a threatening target and/or deactivated by the detection of a neutral target. Likewise, the negative values (blue) follow the inverse of this relationship.
Fig 5.
Neural encoding of the detection of the distractor stimulus.
Shown is an area that was differentially responsive to the detection of threatening versus neutral distractor stimuli, indicating a neural correlate of the distractor detector. The negative values (blue) indicate that this region was deactivated in response to the detection of a threatening target and/or activated by the detection of a neutral target.
Fig 6.
Neural encoding of task effort.
Shown are areas that were differentially responsive to high task effort versus low task effort, indicating a neural correlate of the task effort node. Negative values (blue) indicate that a region was deactivated in response to high task effort and/or activated by low task effort.
Fig 7.
Neural encoding of threat evaluation.
Shown are areas that were differentially responsive to high threat evaluation versus low threat evaluation, indicating a neural correlate of the threat evaluation node. Positive values (orange) indicate that a region was activated in response to high threat evaluation and/or deactivated by low threat evaluation.