These four trials were all expected with cue and target appearing at the same location, two to the left and two to the right. Disregarding filler and catch trials, the weighting between

expected and unexpected trials was 80 vs. 20%. In the endogenous counter-predictive task there were the same number and ratio of trials as the endogenous predictive task. However, in this task the cue predicted the target to appear at the opposite hand to the cue in 80% of the trials, and in 20% of the trials cue and target appeared at the same hand. In the exogenous task there were the same number of trials as the endogenous tasks (112), Atezolizumab in vivo although in this task cued (cue and target appeared at the same location) and uncued trials (cue and target appeared at opposite location) were equally weighted, 50 cued and 50 uncued trials in each block. As

in the other two tasks there were eight catch trials and four ‘fast filler trials’ (Table 1). The stimuli presentation procedure for each trial was the same for all three tasks (Fig. 1). Each trial started with a 50-ms cue. This was followed by a 750-ms inter-stimulus interval before a 50-ms target. The participant was instructed to respond as quickly as possible by saying ‘pa’ into a microphone as soon as the target appeared. Following their response there was a random inter-trial-interval (ITI) of 1000–2000 ms. If no response was selleckchem made within 1500 ms, the trial ID-8 terminated and the next trial began after the ITI. In the endogenous tasks the participant was instructed about the probabilities of the target appearing at expected compared with unexpected locations, and to use this information to speed up RTs. In the exogenous task the participant was informed that the cue would not predict the target location and therefore to ignore the cue completely.

Behavioural data (mean RTs) were submitted to a 2 × 3 repeated-measures anova with the factors Task (endogenous predictive, exogenous, endogenous counter-predictive) and Cue (cued, uncued). A Task × Cue interaction was followed up by separate analysis for each task. To detangle facilitation and inhibition on a behavioural level in the different tasks, the three conditions expected to be fastest were subjected to an anova with factor Cue [endogenous predictive cued (expected), exogenous uncued, endogenous counter-predictive uncued (expected); Table 1]. Similarly, the predicted three slowest conditions were subjected to a repeated-measures anova with factor Cue [endogenous predictive uncued (unexpected), exogenous cued, endogenous counter-predictive cued (unexpected)]. These predictions of fastest and slowest conditions were based upon well-established behavioural research showing facilitation for endogenously attended over unattended targets and IOR in an exogenous task (Lloyd et al., 1999). Wherever the anova assumption of sphericity was violated, Greenhouse–Geisser-adjusted probability levels were reported.