Comparing the two groups, the mean overall accuracy for HC and ASD groups was 92 ± 6 and 79 ± 12% (mean and standard deviation), respectively; mean overall RTs for these two groups were 883 ± 161 and 878 ± 164 msec, respectively. The ASD group made significantly more errors than the HC group (13% difference), t(22) = 3.26, P < 0.01, but the difference in overall RT (6 msec) was not significant, t(22) = 0.09, P > 0.05. Figure 2 shows the network scores in RT and error rate, respectively. Although there were no significant group Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical differences in RT, nonparametric statistical analyses showed a significant group difference in alerting-related errors, Mann–Whitney
U = 34.5, n1 = n2 = 12, P < 0.05. The ASD group (M = 4.4%, MDN = 4.3%) made significantly more errors than the HC group (M = 1.0%, MDN = 0.0%) when the target appeared without, compared with, an alerting cue. The conflict effects for HC and ASD in error rate were 6 ± 4 and 18 ± 15% (greater variance
in ASD), respectively, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and in RT were 132 ± 52 and 151 ± 72 msec, respectively. The ASD group made significantly more errors than the HC group (18.1 vs. 5.9%) under the incongruent compared with the congruent target condition, t(13.03) = 2.76, P < 0.05. Figure 2 Behavioral performances measured by reaction time (RT) (A) and error rate (B) for each measurement for the groups of healthy controls Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (HC) and individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Error bars represent the standard error for each measurement. ... Differences in functional activation associated with the attentional processes Figure 3 and Table 2 show differences in brain activation between HC and ASD groups (HC > ASD) related to each of the three attentional processes; HC exhibited greater activation across all contrasts. For the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical alerting effect, the left MFG (Fig. 3A), caudate nucleus, and right MFG were significantly different. For the validity effect,
mid/posterior cingulate cortex and pregenual Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical ACC (Fig. 3B) in the fronto–parieto–cingulate network were significantly different. Further partition of the validity effect into its two subcomponents, disengaging and moving/engaging, showed that the left and right pregenual ACC (Fig. 3C), right supramarginal gyrus and inferior parietal over lobule (IPL – a subdivision of TPJ), and angular gyrus were significantly different BLU9931 manufacturer during disengaging, and that the fusiform gyrus (Fig. 3D), superior temporal gyrus, and anterior insular cortex were significantly different during moving/engaging. Orienting showed similar group differences (Fig. 3E) to the moving/engaging effect. The conflict effect showed focal differences in ACC activation (Fig. 3F). Figure 3 Differences (healthy controls [HC] greater than individuals with autism spectrum disorders [ASD]) in brain activation corresponding to the measures of network effects. The color was scaled from t >2.51 to 5 for these group difference maps.