1). The scene presented in this recognition phase could be a scene MK-1775 supplier without a letter, with a target letter, or with a distractor letter in the sequence. In task introduction and instructions, it was emphasized that

the main aim of the game was to remember the target letter, which led to reward. Recall of distractor letters and scene recognition were not followed by feedback. There were 300 intermixed trials (10 blocks of 30 trials) separated by breaks. Before the test, participants received a training session (30 trials). However, they did not see the test scenes before the rapid serial presentation trials. The dependent measures were the percentage of correctly recalled letters and the percentage of correctly recognized scenes. The task described above was different from the original procedure used by Lin et al. (2010): (i) correct responses in the letter recall phase were rewarded; (ii) two scenes had white (target) and two scenes black (distractor) letters Selleck Lumacaftor during the 16-item serial visual presentation stream; (iii) participants completed a recall task for both target and distractor letters. However, participants were asked to ignore, suppress and not remember the distractors, which is similar to directed forgetting paradigms (Baddeley et al., 2009). The

method has been extensively documented in previous studies (Fan et al., 2002, 2005, 2009). The ANT has been used in many studies on the genetics, development and clinical disorders of attention (e.g. Posner, 2008). The test–retest reliability of the ANT was adequate in healthy individuals and patients with schizophrenia (Hahn et al., 2011). We used this procedure in the present study. The apparatus for stimulus presentation and response collection was the same as in the ABT. The experimental trials consisted of the following parts: (i) first fixation (duration: 400–1600 ms); (ii) cue presentation (duration: 100 ms); (iii) second fixation (duration: 400 ms);

(iv) target presentation (maximum PAK6 duration: 1700 ms). The target stimulus consisted of five horizontal arrows or lines presented above or below the fixation cross. We asked the participants to indicate the direction of the central arrow by pressing keys representing left or right direction on the computer keyboard. Flankers next to the central arrow were lines (neutral target condition) or arrows with the same (compatible) or opposite (incompatible/conflict) direction. The cue stimuli could be a spatial cue (presented above or below the fixation cross indicating the location of the target), a double cue (presented above and below the center) and a center cue (presented in the center). There were trials with no cues. First, participants received 24 training trials with feedback. Second, we presented 288 trials (4 cues × 3 targets × 8 repetitions per block × 3 blocks). The sequence of trials was pseudo-randomized. There was no feedback.