TABLE 7.

Results of the group-level gPPI analysis with the ROI in the right IFG for the interaction between the level of observed provocation and the anonymity of the opponent during the “Feedback” phase (uncorrected p < 0.001 at the voxel level, FWE-corrected at the cluster level p < 0.05, and k = 15).

	Cluster		Peak			Peak MNI coordinates
Brain area	p(FWE-corr.)	k	p(unc.)	F	Z	x	y	z
R cerebellum	<0.001	457	<0.001	57.83	6.72	9	–37	–22
L cerebellum	0.019	80	<0.001	48.98	6.26	–30	–58	–34
R angular g.	0.001	150	<0.001	48.16	6.22	42	–61	29
R middle frontal g.	0.054	59	<0.001	45.84	6.08	30	32	44
L precentral g.	<0.001	195	<0.001	38.10	5.60	–36	–16	50
R insula	<0.001	363	<0.001	37.96	5.59	36	8	2
R SMA	0.010	95	<0.001	36.68	5.51	12	8	47
L fusiform g.	0.041	64	<0.001	26.57	4.74	–30	–49	–16
L superior temporal g.	<0.001	232	<0.001	26.46	4.73	-51	2	–13
R precuneus	<0.001	190	<0.001	25.84	4.68	12	–58	53
R precentral g.	0.020	79	<0.001	24.47	4.55	39	–4	50
L SMA	0.002	127	<0.001	20.80	4.21	0	–10	56

During the perception of the provocation from the anonymous opponent, functional interactions between the IFG and the listed areas were increased in the condition of high (versus low provocation). This interaction was inversed compared to observing provocation from the known opponent. We did not observe any significant results for other directions of comparison.

k, cluster size in voxels; FWE, familywise error correction; ROI, region of interest; L/R, left/right hemisphere; g., gyrus; SMA, supplementary motor area.