Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2017 Apr 28;7:1278. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01414-y

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Dynamic causal modeling of connectivity between preparation and inference regions. The first eigenvariate of BOLD from SMA (Experiment 1) or dACC (Experiment 2), mPFC and TPJ clusters, was extracted at subject-specific coordinates within 8-mm spheres around individually defined activation maxima. For the winning family (not shown here, see Supplementary Information, Figure S4), eight models tested whether the intention type (INT) modulated the forward connection between preparation (SMA or dACC) and mPFC regions, and whether the intention type (INT) or participant’s priors (PE), or both, modulated the forward or the backward connections between mPFC and TPJ (see ‘DCM analysis procedure’). In all models, there were bilateral intrinsic connections between preparation and mPFC regions, and between mPFC and TPJ regions. Bayesian model comparison was used to compute the exceedance probability for each of the eight models. All connections and their values are shown for the best-fitting model. A: Basic vs. Superordinate intentions (Experiment 1). The exceedance probability was largest for model #4, where the intention type (INT) modulated the forward connection between SMA and mPFC, and where both intention type (INT) and priors (PE) modulated the backward, but not the forward, connection between mPFC and TPJ. B: Non-Social vs. Social intentions (Experiment 2). The exceedance probability was largest for model #3, where the intention type modulated the forward connection between dACC and mPFC and the backward, but not the forward, connection between mPFC and TPJ.