5). Following early somatosensory

attention effects, both endogenous tasks showed modulations at N140 and Nd with larger negativity for expected compared with unexpected trials. For topographical maps of the effects, see Fig. 6. No significant main effects or interactions involving the factor Cue were found for the P45 analysis window. Analysis of the N80 time window showed a Task × Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F2,22 = 21.39, P < 0.001,  = 0.66), as well as a Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 7.40, P = 0.02,  = 0.40). This interaction was broken down further and each task was analysed separately. The exogenous task showed a significant Cue × Hemisphere effect (F1,11 = 29.51, P < 0.001,  = 0.73), and separate

follow-up analyses for each hemisphere showed a significant effect of Cue (F1,11 = 10.01, P = 0.009, check details PD0325901 manufacturer  = 0.48) over electrodes contralateral to the target location, whilst no attention effect was seen over ipsilateral electrodes. There was no correlation between contralateral attention modulation and RT effect (r = 0.04, n.s.). In other words, there was no indication that larger attention modulation of the N80 related to a larger RT effect across participants. In the endogenous predictive task there was a Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 12.00, P = 0.005,  = 0.52), and separate follow-up analyses for each hemisphere showed Carteolol HCl an attention effect over electrodes contralateral to target presentation only (Cue: F1,11 = 5.19, P = 0.044,  = 0.32). There was no significant correlation between the contralateral attention modulation and RT effect (r = 0.52, n.s.). The endogenous counter-predictive task also demonstrated a significant Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 12.97, P = 0.004,  = 0.54), and separate follow-up analyses of each hemisphere demonstrated the N80 attention effect to be present only at electrodes ipsilateral (Cue: F1,11 = 6.97, P = 0.023,  = 0.39) to target location. There was no significant correlation between

ipsilateral attention modulation and RT effect (r = 0.32, n.s.). The overall analysis including all three tasks at the P100 time window demonstrated a significant Task × Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F2,22 = 8.47, P = 0.002,  = 0.44), as well as a Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 15.95, P = 0.002,  = 0.59), and follow-up analyses were conducted for each task separately. The exogenous task showed a significant Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 12.25, P = 0.005,  = 0.53). However, separate follow-up analysis revealed no significant effect of attention at either hemisphere. In the endogenous predictive task there was a Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 14.54, P = 0.003,  = 0.57), and separate follow-up analyses for each hemisphere showed a Cue × Electrode site interaction at contralateral electrodes (F5,55 = 7.07, P = 0.001,  = 0.39).