Fig 1.
A shows the physical setup; one participant (the agent) performed the task inside the MRI, the second (the ‘victim’) in an adjacent room, with a visual ink via camera. B shows the visual presentation inside the MRI: on the left, a live camera feed of the recipient’s hand was shown; on the right, task stimuli were presented. C shows the temporal outline of a single trial. D shows the correlation between the coercion effect on binding and the coercion effect on explicit control ratings.
Table 1.
Summary of behavioural data.
Fig 2.
Main effect of coercion and interaction with coercion effect on binding.
A shows the main contrast Coercion > FreeChoice. B shows the MFG cluster of the regression of the binding coercion effect against the FreeChoice > Coercion contrast. C shows percent signal change for the region shown in B, for participants sorted by median split according to their coercion effect on binding. D shows the correlation between the Free choice > Coercion contrast in the MFG and the Free Choice > Coercion difference in binding. E shows the percent signal change for the same region, with participants sorted by median split according to their coercion effect on explicit responsibility ratings. F shows the correlation between coercion effects on MFG activity and responsibility ratings. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
Table 2.
Whole-brain fMRI analyses results.
Fig 3.
Interaction of freely administered shocks and coercion.
Fig A shows the regression of number of freely administered shocks against the FreeChoice > Coercion contrast. For the shown regions, participants who delivered more shocks showed relatively less activity in free choice trials. B shows the median split for the regions shown in A.
Fig 4.
Schematic model showing the proposed underlying cognitive mechanism of the relationship between MFG activity, temporal binding and sense of responsibility under coercion.