48, P = 0.03, Bonferroni corrected). Analysis of ipsilateral electrodes showed no P100 attention effect. A correlation of the ERP attention modulation and behavioural effect showed no significant relationship (r = 0.25, n.s). Analysis of the endogenous counter-predictive task showed no significant effects involving the factor Cue. There was a Task

× Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F2,22 = 7.05, P = 0.004,  = 0.39), as well as a main effect of Cue (F1,11 = 20.87, P = 0.001,  = 0.66) and Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 16.27, P = 0.002,  = 0.60). The significant interaction was further broken down into separate analysis for each task. Exogenous task analysis of the N140 showed a significant Cue × Electrode site × Hemisphere Alectinib in vivo interaction (F5,55 = 3.34, P = 0.029, http://www.selleckchem.com/products/VX-809.html  = 0.23), which was broken down into separate analyses for each hemisphere. However, there were no significant effects including the factor Cue at electrodes ipsilateral

or contralateral to the target presentation, indicating no attention modulation at the N140 in the exogenous task. Analysis of the endogenous predictive task revealed a significant main effect of Cue (F1,11 = 16.95, P = 0.002,  = 0.61), and also Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 21.53, P = 0.001,  = 0.66). The interaction was broken down revealing a significant effect of Cue, both for ipsilateral (F1,11 = 26.66, P < 0.001,  = 0.71) and contralateral

electrodes (F1,11 = 8.77, P = 0.013,  = 0.44), and both these effects showed enhanced negativity for expected compared with unexpected trials (the interaction was driven by larger effect size over ipsilateral compared with contralateral hemisphere; Fig. 4). That is, the N140 attention effect in the endogenous predictive task was present over both hemispheres. Moreover, and importantly, there was a significant correlation between the ERP attention modulation and the behavioural RT effect, with larger amplitude difference between expected Vildagliptin and unexpected conditions for each participant relating to larger RT attention effect (r = 0.69, P = 0.013; see Fig. 7 for a scatterplot of this relationship). The endogenous counter-predictive task revealed the attention effect was, similar to the endogenous predictive task, bilateral as there was a significant effect of Cue (F1,11 = 5.16, P = 0.044,  = 0.32). There was no significant correlation between ERP attention modulation and RT effect (r = 0.32, n.s.). At this last analysed time window the overall task analysis demonstrated a Task × Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F2,22 = 8.29, P = 0.002,  = 0.43) and also Cue (F1,11 = 11.02, P = 0.007,  = 0.50), and subsequently each task was analysed separately. The exogenous task revealed a Cue × Hemisphere interaction (F1,11 = 8.57, P = 0.014,  = 0.44).