Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 May 29.
Published in final edited form as: J Neurosci. 2009 Feb 11;29(6):1648–1656. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4578-08.2009

Figure 3.

Figure 3

A: Study Design. After an initial Pavlovian conditioning task with one CS− and three CS+ indicating three different outcome contingencies of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75, these CS+ were degraded in an ambiguity condition to resemble the original CS+ but allow no accurate prediction of outcomes. This was explained to participants as “noisy reception” and indicated by a grey frame. The original cues were shown in a risk condition as indicated by a white frame. In an ignorance condition, completely novel stimuli served as control. Additionally, the CS− was interleaved and served as internal baseline. B: Intra-trial timeline. Each cue was shown for 5.2 seconds, during which participants had to respond to its position on the screen (above or below the screen centre). Then, the outcome was indicated for 0.5 s and delivered. In ambiguous trials, the underlying original CS+ was shown together with the outcome indication.