Accuracies and reaction times were computed for each subject, category of paintings (portraits, landscapes, abstract paintings) and response type (Yes/No during the flower detection task; Remember/Know/New during the memory retrieval test). ANOVA was used to compare the various conditions.
Functional MRI data were analyzed in BrainVoyager QX Version 1.8 (Brain Innovation, Maastricht, The Netherlands). All volumes were realigned to the first volume, corrected for motion artefacts and spatially smoothed using a 5-mm FWHM Gaussian filter. The main effects during the study and test were analyzed using multiple regression (Friston et al., 1995 (link)). Based on the contrast of paintings vs. fixation, a set of ROIs was anatomically defined for each subject with clusters that showed a significant effect (p < 0.0001, uncorrected). These regions included the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG), fusiform gyrus (FG), dorsal occipital cortex (DOC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), insula and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The contrasts of Remember vs. Know and Remember vs. New further revealed significant activation in the precuneus and in two medial temporal lobe structures, the parahippocampal cortex (PHC) and the hippocampus. In each subject and each ROI, the mean parameter estimates were calculated separately for each response type (Yes/No during flower detection task; Remember/Know/New during memory test) and were used for between-subjects random-effects analyses.
Finally, we tested whether reaction times and fMRI activation during the study phase could predict subsequent behavioral and neural responses to the old paintings during the test phase. Thus, responses during the flower detection task were sorted based on subsequent Remember and Know judgments subjects made during the retrieval test.
Functional MRI data were analyzed in BrainVoyager QX Version 1.8 (Brain Innovation, Maastricht, The Netherlands). All volumes were realigned to the first volume, corrected for motion artefacts and spatially smoothed using a 5-mm FWHM Gaussian filter. The main effects during the study and test were analyzed using multiple regression (Friston et al., 1995 (link)). Based on the contrast of paintings vs. fixation, a set of ROIs was anatomically defined for each subject with clusters that showed a significant effect (p < 0.0001, uncorrected). These regions included the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG), fusiform gyrus (FG), dorsal occipital cortex (DOC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), insula and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The contrasts of Remember vs. Know and Remember vs. New further revealed significant activation in the precuneus and in two medial temporal lobe structures, the parahippocampal cortex (PHC) and the hippocampus. In each subject and each ROI, the mean parameter estimates were calculated separately for each response type (Yes/No during flower detection task; Remember/Know/New during memory test) and were used for between-subjects random-effects analyses.
Finally, we tested whether reaction times and fMRI activation during the study phase could predict subsequent behavioral and neural responses to the old paintings during the test phase. Thus, responses during the flower detection task were sorted based on subsequent Remember and Know judgments subjects made during the retrieval test.
