Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 28;14(3):263–270. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsz005

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

All error bars indicate ±1 Standard error (SE). Asterisks indicate P < 0.05. For proposers, (A) there was a significant difference between cathodal stimulation and anodal and sham stimulation in the effect on the average amount of money kept in the rTPJ stimulation groups. (B) There was no significant effect of stimulation condition on the average amount of money kept over 10 rounds in the rDLPFC stimulation groups. For responders, (C) there was no effect when rTPJ was stimulated. (D) There was a significant difference between cathodal stimulation and anodal and sham stimulation in the effect on the total number of offers accepted by responders.