Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 7;38(6):1430–1442. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2798-17.2017

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

More intensive training with complex sequences (Experiment 2) revealed highly similar results. Participants in the second experiment practiced eight different sequences of 11 presses for 5–6 d (2 h per d) before the imaging session. A, log-Bayes-factor (Fig. 5) for the data of M1 and S1 for the first-finger model (1F), the two-finger transition model (2T), sequence model (S) and the combination between the first-finger and sequence model (1F+S). The arrow again indicates the winning model. Error bars represent SE across subjects. B, Log-Bayes factor between first-finger and noise ceiling model. As in Experiment 1, the first-finger model provided an adequate explanation for M1 and S1, but not for secondary motor areas. The dashed line shows the typical threshold value for model selection (Kass and Raftery, 1995).