Tention, and second, to examine if these two classes of behavior are subserved by the same neural architecture. We hypothesized that people would imagine doing one thing, but when faced with real monetary incentive, do anotherand that this behavioral difference would be reflected at the neurobiological level with differential patterns of activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects Fourteen healthy subjects took part in this study: six males; mean age and s.d. 25.9 ?4.6, completed a Real PvG, Imagine PvG and a Non-Moral control task in a within-subject design while undergoing fMRI. Four additional subjects were excluded from analyzes due to expressing doubts about the veracity of the Real PvG task on a post-scan questionnaire and during debriefing. Two additional subjects were not included because of errors in acquiring scanning images. Subjects were compensated for their time and travel and allowed to keep any earnings accumulated during the task. All subjects were right-handed, had normal or corrected vision and were screened to ensure no history of psychiatric or neurological problems. All subjects gave informed consent, and the study was approved by the University of X-396 cancer Cambridge, Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee. Experimental tasks Real pain vs gain task (Real PvG) In the Real PvG subjects (Deciders) were given ?0 and asked how much of their money they were willing to give up to prevent a series of painful electric stimulations from reaching the wrist of the second subject (the Receivera confederate). The more money the Decider?The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.SCAN (2012)O. Feldman Hall et al.Fig. 1 Experimental setup, trial sequence (highlighting analyzed epochs) and behavioral data: (A) The Receiver (a confederate) sits in an adjoining testing laboratory to the scanning facility where the Decider (true subject) is undergoing fMRI. The Decider is told that any money left at the end of the task will be randomly multiplied up to 10 times, giving Deciders as much as ?00 to take home. The Decider is also required to view, via prerecorded video feed, the administration of any painful stimulation to the Receiver, who is hooked up to an electric stimulation generator. (B) All three tasks (Real PvG, Imagine PvG and Non-Moral task) follow the same event-related design, with the same structure and timing parameters. Our Necrostatin-1 site analytical focus was on the Decide event (>11 s). The Video event (4 s), which was spaced a fixed 11 s after the Decide event, was also used in the analysis. (C) Still images of each task illustrating the video the Decider saw while in the scanner: Real PvG video, Imagine PvG video, and Non-Moral video, respectively. VAS scale Deciders used to indicate amount of money to give up/stimulation to deliver per trial. (D) Significantly more Money Kept in the Real PvG Task as compared to the Imagine PvG Task (P ?0.025; error bars ?1 S.E.M). (E) No significant differences between distress levels in response to the Video event across moral tasks.chose to relinquish, the lower the painful stimulations inflicted on the Receiver, the key behavioral variable being how much money Deciders kept (with larg.Tention, and second, to examine if these two classes of behavior are subserved by the same neural architecture. We hypothesized that people would imagine doing one thing, but when faced with real monetary incentive, do anotherand that this behavioral difference would be reflected at the neurobiological level with differential patterns of activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects Fourteen healthy subjects took part in this study: six males; mean age and s.d. 25.9 ?4.6, completed a Real PvG, Imagine PvG and a Non-Moral control task in a within-subject design while undergoing fMRI. Four additional subjects were excluded from analyzes due to expressing doubts about the veracity of the Real PvG task on a post-scan questionnaire and during debriefing. Two additional subjects were not included because of errors in acquiring scanning images. Subjects were compensated for their time and travel and allowed to keep any earnings accumulated during the task. All subjects were right-handed, had normal or corrected vision and were screened to ensure no history of psychiatric or neurological problems. All subjects gave informed consent, and the study was approved by the University of Cambridge, Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee. Experimental tasks Real pain vs gain task (Real PvG) In the Real PvG subjects (Deciders) were given ?0 and asked how much of their money they were willing to give up to prevent a series of painful electric stimulations from reaching the wrist of the second subject (the Receivera confederate). The more money the Decider?The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.SCAN (2012)O. Feldman Hall et al.Fig. 1 Experimental setup, trial sequence (highlighting analyzed epochs) and behavioral data: (A) The Receiver (a confederate) sits in an adjoining testing laboratory to the scanning facility where the Decider (true subject) is undergoing fMRI. The Decider is told that any money left at the end of the task will be randomly multiplied up to 10 times, giving Deciders as much as ?00 to take home. The Decider is also required to view, via prerecorded video feed, the administration of any painful stimulation to the Receiver, who is hooked up to an electric stimulation generator. (B) All three tasks (Real PvG, Imagine PvG and Non-Moral task) follow the same event-related design, with the same structure and timing parameters. Our analytical focus was on the Decide event (>11 s). The Video event (4 s), which was spaced a fixed 11 s after the Decide event, was also used in the analysis. (C) Still images of each task illustrating the video the Decider saw while in the scanner: Real PvG video, Imagine PvG video, and Non-Moral video, respectively. VAS scale Deciders used to indicate amount of money to give up/stimulation to deliver per trial. (D) Significantly more Money Kept in the Real PvG Task as compared to the Imagine PvG Task (P ?0.025; error bars ?1 S.E.M). (E) No significant differences between distress levels in response to the Video event across moral tasks.chose to relinquish, the lower the painful stimulations inflicted on the Receiver, the key behavioral variable being how much money Deciders kept (with larg.
