Table 2.
Path weights for Granger causality Analysis.
| Path weight |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Target | Human | Machine | t-value | p-value |
| PI | R aPreC | 0.23 | 0.18 | 4.06 | 2.80 × 10-5 |
| L aPreC | 0.18 | 0.19 | 2.57 | 5.16 × 10-3 | |
| PCC | 0.27 | 0.18 | 3.96 | 4.16 × 10-5 | |
| rlPFC | 0.16 | 0.18 | 2.32 | 1.04 × 10-2 | |
| pTPJ | 0.17 | 0.15 | 2.52 | 6.02 × 10-3 | |
| L aPreC | PI | 0.18 | -0.17 | 2.42 | 7.80 × 10-3 |
| R aPreC | 0.18 | -0.12 | 2.44 | 7.51 × 10-3 | |
| PCC | 0.20 | -0.15 | 3.47 | 2.79 × 10-4 | |
| rlPFC | 0.16 | -0.15 | 2.01 | 2.22 × 10-2 | |
| pTPJ | 0.24 | -0.21 | 3.12 | 9.39 × 10-4 | |
The path weights displayed show significant effective connectivity paths that are stronger in the human-agent group compared to the machine-agent group during run 1 [all connections survived q(FDR) < 0.05, except the connection to rlPFC that survived q(FDR) < 0.08]. The directionality of the connectivity is shown in the first two columns, with the source column showing the ROIs that predict activation in the target column ROIs. The strength of connectivity is given by the mean path weights in the third column. PI, posterior insula; aPreC, anterior precuneus; PCC, posterior cingulate cortex; rlPFC, rostrolateral prefrontal cortex; pTPJ, posterior temporoparietal junction.