Skip to main content
. 2026 Sep 21;20:1963554. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2026.1963554

Table 4.

ROI follow-up comparisons for significant omnibus effects (Experiment 2).

Contrast ROI Mean diff. 95% CI t p
Incongruent > congruent ACC_L 0.020 (0.007, 0.033) 3.09 0.004
ACC_R 0.025 (0.010, 0.039) 3.51 0.001
AMG_L 0.022 (0.005, 0.039) 2.71 0.011
AMG_R 0.017 (0.002, 0.031) 2.40 0.023
DLPFC_L 0.027 (0.009, 0.046) 3.06 0.005
DLPFC_R 0.031 (0.014, 0.048) 3.65 0.001
FEF_L 0.023 (0.008, 0.038) 3.20 0.003
FEF_R 0.019 (0.006, 0.033) 2.98 0.006
2-cue > 6-cue FEF_L 0.026 (0.003, 0.050) 2.26 0.031
2-cue 6-face: happy > angry ACC_L 0.036 (0.010, 0.062) 2.87 0.008
AMG_R 0.031 (0.003, 0.058) 2.30 0.029
Happy: incongruent > congruent DLPFC_L 0.039 (0.019, 0.060) 3.90 <0.001
2-cue happy: incongruent > congruent DLPFC_L 0.052 (0.023, 0.082) 3.61 0.001
6-cue angry: incongruent > congruent DLPFC_L 0.035 (0.006, 0.065) 2.45 0.021

Follow-up pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni-corrected; only significant comparisons are shown. df = 29 for all tests. Mean differences and 95% CIs are expressed in percent signal change. The cue size comparison is reported in the observed direction (2-cue > 6-cue).