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 4.

Figure 4

BOLD responses to ambiguous cues, as compared to risky or ignorance cues. Clusters are overlaid on a mean T1-weighted image from all participants, and displayed at a voxel-level threshold of p < .001 (uncorrected) and small volume correction with regard to peak coordinates of previous studies as indicated in the methods section. A: Bilateral pIFG responses to ambiguous as compared to risky cues. B: Bilateral pPAR and occipital responses to ambiguous as compared to risky cues. C: Bilateral pIFG responses to ambiguous as compared to ignorance cues. D: Right pPAR and bilateral occipital responses to ambiguous as compared to ignorance cues. E: Bilateral pIFG responses to ambiguous as compared to both risky and ignorance cues (conjunction analysis, testing against conjunction null). F: Right pPAR and bilateral occipital responses to ambiguous as compared to both risky and ignorance cues (conjunction analysis, testing against conjunction null).