Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Neuroanatomical extend of the multiple demand network or MD cortex, based on averaged unthresholded activity of seven diverse task sets (Fedorenko et al., 2013).
- Figure 2.
Schematic representation of the audiovisual matching task. Participants listened to two different auditory stimulus streams (rapid pips), one presented to each ear, while simultaneously viewing a centrally presented visual stimulus stream (left-right flipping Gabor grating). One of the auditory streams matched the temporal profile of the visual stream and participants had to indicate its source (left or right ear).
- Figure 3.
Distribution of mutual information of the high and low complexity stimulus streams before and after correction (installing a maximum limit of 0.05 bits).
- Figure 4.
Visual representations of typical examples of the 4-s temporal sequences used for the two levels of complexity in (A) the psychophysical experiment and (B) the psychophysical control experiment.
- Figure 5.
Accuracy (±1 SEM) for matching performance in the psychophysical experiment, separately for each level of the complexity (dark = for high complexity, light = low complexity) and asynchrony manipulations (0, 100, 200, and 300 ms offsets).
- Figure 6.
Accuracy (±1 SEM) for matching performance in the fMRI experiment, separately for each level of the complexity and synchrony manipulations.
- Figure 7.
Results of the fMRI random effects analysis showing unique activation patterns for the complexity manipulation (low complexity > high complexity, shown in red), synchrony manipulation (200-ms delay > 0-ms delay, shown in blue) using an exclusive masking approach. Common activity for both manipulations (i.e., via conjunction analysis) is shown in green.
- Figure 8.
Accuracy (±1 SEM) for matching performance in the psychophysical control experiment, separately for each level of the complexity and asynchrony manipulations.
Tables
Factor F(df) p value partial-η2 Main effect: synchrony 25.37 (3,72) <0.001 0.514 Main effect: complexity 40.06 (1,24) <0.001 0.626 Interaction: synchrony × complexity 3.96 (3,72) 0.011 0.142 Factor F(df) p value partial-η2 Main effect: synchrony 47.15 (1,33) <0.001 0.589 Main effect: complexity 448.89 (1,33) <0.001 0.932 Interaction: synchrony × complexity 3.59 (1,33) 0.067 0.098 - Table 3.
Results from two-way repeated-measures ANOVA for the psychophysical control experiment
Factor F(df) p value partial-η2 Main effect: synchrony 85.76 (3,72) <0.001 0.789 Main effect: complexity 17.76 (1,24) <0.001 0.436 Interaction: synchrony × complexity 5.14 (3,72) 0.003 0.183 Region Hemisphere Brodmann area MNI coordinates T values/z values of maxima (cluster size in number of voxels) X Y Z Low complexity > high complexity (masked exclusively by 200 > 0 ms) IFG (tri/orb) L 45/47 −40 30 −3 5.70/5.38 (211) STG L 22/38 −50 4 −7 5.53/5.23 (159) STG/TP R 38 50 8 −11 5.24/4.98 (79) 200 > 0 ms (masked exclusively by high complexity > low complexity) Pre-SMA/MedFG/SFG/Cing L + R 6/32 6 14 47 5.93/5.57 (136) MFG/PrecG L 6 −30 −2 55 5.70/5.38 (452) MFG/PrecG/IFG (Oper/Tri) R 9/8/6 46 32 37 5.55/5.25 (929) Conjunction: (low complexity > high complexity) Λ (200 > 0 ms) Pre-SMA/SFG(medial) L + R 8/6/32 2 28 47 5.57/5.27 (599) IPL L 40/7 −30 −50 45 5.01/4.78 (160) Ins/IFG(tri/orb) L 47/45 −34 30 1 4.95/4.73 (91) Spatial coordinates, anatomic locations, and cluster size of the local maxima in the group analysis, showing significant activations (height-threshold p = 0.0001, extent-threshold p = 0.05, FWE-corrected for multiple comparisons). CinG = cingulate gyrus, IFG = inferior frontal gyrus, Ins = insula, IPL = inferior parietal lobule, L = left hemisphere, MedFG = medial frontal gyrus, MFG = middle frontal gyrus, Oper = opercularis, PrecG = precentral gyrus, R = right hemisphere, SFG = superior frontal gyrus, STG = superior temporal gyrus, TP = temporal pole, tri = triangularis.
In this issue
