TABLE 3.

Analysis of variance whole-brain results demonstrating (A) a main effect of Condition and (B) an interaction of Group (CW, RBN) by Condition (Hungry, Fed) in response to tastant. Coordinates are reported for the center of mass. L: left; R: right; CW: healthy comparison women; RBN: women remitted from bulimia nervosa; Sup: Superior. Small volume correction was determined with Monte-Carlo simulations (via AFNI’s 3dClustSim) to guard against false positives. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using glht from the multcomp package in R to test general linear hypotheses using Tukey’s all-pair comparisons.

(A) Main effect of Condition
Area	R/L	Volume (voxels)	x	y	z	F	η2	Post-hoc Comparisons
								Contrast	z	p
Lentiform Nucleus	L	106	21	−2	−10	18.67	0.02	Hungry > Fed	5.25	< 0.001
Sup Temporal Gy	R	82	−50	49	16	14.69	0.002	Fed > Hungry	5.22	< 0.001
Cingulate Gy	L	82	0	28	27	11.28	0.01	Hungry > Fed	3.08	0.002
Precuneus	L	69	21	63	36	15.11	0.01	Hungry > Fed	3.51	< 0.001
(B) Group x Condition Interaction
Area	R/L	Volume (voxels)	x	y	z	F	η2	Post-hoc Comparisons
								Contrast	z	p
Sup Temporal	R	128	−51	49	17	18.67	0.03	CW Fed > CW Hungry	2.59	0.047
								RBN Hungry > CW Hungry	3.33	0.005
								RBN Hungry > RBN Fed	3.65	0.001
		63	−49	23	6	18.19	0.03	CW Fed > CW Hungry	3.83	0.001
Precuneus	L	113	26	58	24	21.34	0.02	CW Hungry > CW Fed	3.56	0.002
Amygdala/ Parahippocampal	L	94	14	0	−10	16.06	0.03	CW Hungry > CW Fed	5.53	< 0.001
								RBN Fed > CW Fed	3.2	0.006
Precentral	R	70	−52	10	29	13.45	0.02	CW Hungry > CW Fed	4.03	< 0.001