[null, null, null, {"document_url": "https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC4306597_gr4&req=4", "unformatted_src": "/imgs/512/258/4306597/PMC4306597_gr4.png", "src": "https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/258/4306597/PMC4306597_gr4.png", "formatted_filename": "PMC gr", "alt_text": "The regional effect size (beta) of BOLD response to the (A) SE, (B) TE and (C) SUP at different window lengths. The regions of interest were defined at the peaks of the significant clusters (with 8\u00a0mm radius) that showed averaged effect across all windows for each outcome measure (Fig.\u00a03). The bars denote the averaged response in the ROIs. Error bars denote standard errors across participants. (A) and (B) showed the absolute value of the effect size because the correlation between the BOLD response and entropy measures are negative.", "rendered_width": 512, "rendered_height": 406}, null]
The neural signature of information regularity in temporally extended event sequences. Zhang J, Rowe JB - Neuroimage (2014) 

f0020: The regional effect size (beta) of BOLD response to the (A) SE, (B) TE and (C) SUP at different window lengths. The regions of interest were defined at the peaks of the significant clusters (with 8 mm radius) that showed averaged effect across all windows for each outcome measure (Fig. 3). The bars denote the averaged response in the ROIs. Error bars denote standard errors across participants. (A) and (B) showed the absolute value of the effect size because the correlation between the BOLD response and entropy measures are negative.
Mentions: The regions of interest (ROI) were defined as spheres of 8 mm radius centered on peak coordinates of randomness-related activation averaged across the six window lengths. All ROIs except FPC showed increased BOLD response to stimulus onset (Supplementary Fig. S2). Therefore the negative BOLD-entropy correlations suggest increased activation with more ordered sequence. We then examined whether the BOLD-randomness associations depended on the length of the sliding-window in each ROI (Fig. 4). For SE, a repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant effect of window length in the TPJ (F(5,75) = 6.97, p < 0.001, FDR corrected) but not in the FPC (F(5,75) = 1.71, p = 0.14). For TE, there was a significant effect of window length in the TPJ (F(5,75) = 2.82, p < 0.05, FDR corrected), MTG (F(5,75) = 3.67, p < 0.01, FDR corrected), and cerebellum (F(5,75) = 3.44, p < 0.01, FDR corrected), but not in the ITG (F(5,75) = 1.67, p = 0.15). No significant effect of window length was observed on the BOLD response to the SUP (SMA, F(5,75) = 0.42, p = 0.84; SFG, F(5,75) = 0.28, p = 0.92; SPL, F(5,75) = 1.36, p = 0.25). Post-hoc analysis on the regions with a significant main effect of window length showed that the SE effect at 50-trial window was larger than that at 25-trial window in the TPJ (t(15) = 3.04, p < 0.01). The TE effect at 50-trial window was larger than that at 25-trial window in the MTG (t(15) = 2.14, p < 0.01) and cerebellum (t(15) = 2.30, p < 0.05), and the difference was marginal in TPJ (t(15) = 2.10, p = 0.05). supplementary Fig. S4 shows how the BOLD response negatively scales with SE and TE at 25-trial and 50-trial windows.
Bottom Line: This uncertainty applies to the regularities of sensory inputs as well as instrumental actions.In contrast, activity in the supplementary motor area, the superior frontal gyrus, and the superior parietal lobule was positively correlated with the surprise of each stimulus across different timescales.The results suggest a spatial distribution of regions sensitive to various information regularities according to a temporal hierarchy, which may play a central role in concurrently monitoring the regularity in previous and current events over different timescales to optimize behavioral control in a dynamic environment.


Affiliation: Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Medical Research Council, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK. Electronic address: email@example.com.
