BSF, broadband spatial frequency; HSF, high spatial frequency; LSF, low spatial frequency. ANOVA with repeated measures revealed a significant main effect of spatial … As can be seen in Figure 2, the performance pattern of the three spatial frequency conditions differs more in the forward than that

in the backward masking components. Therefore, we repeated the aforementioned analyses separately for the forward and backward masking components. For the forward Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical masking component, there was a significant main effect of spatial frequency (F(2,52) = 30.8, P < 0.001), and a spatial frequency by SOA interaction (F(4104) = 4.45, P < 0.005), but no main effect of SOA (F(2,52) = 1.98, ns). For the backward masking component, there were significant main effects of spatial frequency (F(2,52) = 45.5, P Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical < 0.001) and SOA (F(2,52) = 7.49, P < 0.005), but no significant spatial frequency by SOA interaction (F(4104) = 1.03, ns). To further examine the interaction effect, difference scores were calculated by subtracting each trial from the appropriate baseline

(no-TMS) condition (e.g., subtracting HSF trials from the no-TMS HSF condition) and www.selleckchem.com/Proteasome.html averaging the forward and backward masking components across SOAs. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical A 3 × 2 repeated measures (spatial frequency by forward/backward masking) ANOVA enabled then an examination of the interaction effect while controlling for baseline Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical performance. These analyses revealed no significant main effects for spatial frequency (F(2,52) = 0.23, ns) or forward/backward masking (F(1,26) = 0.93, ns), but there was a significant spatial frequency by forward/backward interaction, F(2,52) = 9.25, P < 0.001. Pairwise comparisons of the interaction effect indicated

that in the BSF condition participants performed significantly worse in the forward TMS masking component than in the backward masking component (P < 0.005). Conversely, in the HSF condition participants performed significantly worse in the backward masking component Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical than in the forward masking component (P < 0.05). No significant differences were detected between the forward and backward masking components in the LSF condition (P = 0.74; see Fig. 3). Figure 3 Participants' performance after controlling for baseline (no-TMS) condition and averaging the forward and backward masking components across trials. BSF, broadband Cell press spatial frequency; HSF, high spatial frequency; LSF, low spatial frequency. ANOVA with … Finally, to examine whether the aforementioned effects were specific to emotion processing rather than face perception in general, we reanalyzed our data by looking at performance accuracy for each of the four emotions. Due to a limited number of trials per emotion (examining the separate emotions was not an original aim of this study), we averaged the forward and backward masking components across SOAs.