Table 4.

Functional activations demonstrating a significant difference between SRRT cognitive control greater than automatic condition preparatory-related activity compared to Go/NoGo variant cognitive control greater than automatic condition response-related activity.

Region of Interest	BA	Coordinates			Clus.	Max t	Condition
		X	Y	Z
Right middle temporal	21	43	−26	−8	13	5.57	NoGoCog>NoGoAuto
Left middle temporal	21	−54	−27	−2	13	4.05	NoGoCog>NoGoAuto NoGoCog>SRRTCog
Right parietal	40	36	−34	44	14	4.68	NoGoAuto>NoGoCog NoGoAuto>SRRTAuto
Left parietal	40	−43	−35	51	55	5.54	NoGoAuto>NoGoCog NoGoAuto>SRRTAuto
Left posterior cingulate	29	−2	−43	7	58	6.95	NoGoAuto>NoGoCog SRRTCog>NoGoCog
Left middle temporal	21/37	−49	−47	−1	18	5.59	NoGoCog>NoGoAuto SRRTAuto>SRRTCog NoGoCog>SRRTCog
Left middle/superior temporal	39/40	−59	−53	30	34	4.84	NoGoCog>NoGo Auto SRRTAuto>SRRTCog

Note: Abbreviations: BA: Brodmann’s area; Clus.: Cluster size, number of contiguous voxels; NoGo_Cog:Go/NoGo variant cognitive control condition; NoGo_Auto:Go/NoGo variant automatic condition; SRRT_Cog:SRRT cognitive control condition; SRRT_Auto:SRRT automatic condition.

The contrast column lists the paired t-tests that were significantly different for the following four tests conducted: cognitive control vs. automatic condition for Go/NoGo variant; cognitive control vs. automatic condition for SRRT; automatic condition for SRRT vs. Go/NoGo; cognitive control condition for SRRT vs. Go/NoGo. Analyses were thresholded at p<0.005, 11 degrees of freedom, with a contiguity threshold of 8.