Table 6.

Whole-brain searchlight of target–item lure classification

Region	H	k	t	x	y	z
Target–item lure classification: whole group > theoretical chance
Frontal pole	M	10	4.31	−2	64	18
	R	32	4.01	42	52	8
	R	132	4.82	42	38	12
Precentral gyrus	L	31	4.56	−56	8	10
	L	14	4.27	−52	−4	44
	L	10	4.16	−34	−18	66
Postcentral gyrus	L	25	4.68	−40	−30	58
Superior temporal gyrus	L	46	4.65	−50	−42	4
Middle temporal gyrus	L	33	4.82	−62	−48	−4
Posterior cingulate	M	12	4.25	−4	−48	32
Precuneus	L	15	4.45	−10	−64	40
	M	12	4.91	−6	−54	52
	M	79	4.77	4	−60	60
	M	10	4.75	−4	−62	12
Supramarginal gyrus	L	147	5	−46	−34	46
Lateral occipital cortex	L	14	4.15	−44	−72	20
	L	12	3.94	−26	−76	30
Lingual gyrus	M	13	4.31	−4	−68	−2
Cuneus	M	264	4.91	2	−72	26
Calcarine cortex	M	113	4.93	6	−68	18
Target–item lure classification: young > older adults
Inferior frontal gyrus	L	19	3.69	−44	4	18
Postcentral gyrus	L	30	3.77	−42	−28	42
	L	29	3.1	−10	−38	52
	R	10	2.71	−42	−30	58
Precuneus	L	16	2.84	−18	−68	38
	M	18	2.35	4	−48	38
	M	29	3.48	4	−58	60
	R	18	3.15	10	−64	32
Lingual gyrus	M	1027	4.2	4	−80	−2
	R	22	3.23	20	−64	−10
Calcarine cortex	L	11	3.79	−12	−84	4

Regions where target–item lure classification was above chance (upper portion) and those where classification accuracy was higher in young compared with older adults (lower portion). No region showed classification accuracy that was significantly better for older compared with young adults.

H, Hemisphere; k, cluster size in number of voxels; t, t-statistic of peak voxel, x, y, z, peak coordinates in MNI space.