case_images: PMC3916771_01
case_images: Numerical Stroop task. Congruency effect (measured in terms of accuracy) for the two DD individuals. DD1 did not exhibit the canonical Congruency effect (Congruent > Neutral > Incongruent), while DD2 showed a clear Congruency pattern in the predicted direction. For DD1: Neutral > Congruent (p < 0.05); Congruent vs. Incongruent (p = 0.13); Incongruent vs. Neutral (p = 0.08). For DD2: Congruent > Incongruent (p < 0.05); Congruent vs. Neutral (p = 0.07); Incongruent vs. Neutral (p = 0.16). Data are mean +- standard error (SE) of the mean. *p < 0.05.
case_images: fnhum-08-00038-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC3916771_01_fnhum-08-00038-g0005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: When presented with non-adjacent pairs, DD1 did not show any evidence of transitive inference, as she did not exhibit a congruency effect (Figure 5). In contrast, DD2 showed a congruency effect on the accuracy variable (Figure 5). Indeed, the behavioral outcome in DD2 is different from the one expected in neuro-typical adults (Figures 5, 6), suggesting that differential strategies might be adopted by the subject while solving the task.
case_images: Numerical distance by congruency effects. Effects measured in terms of RTs for each DD individual. DD1 did not exhibit the canonical Congruency effect (Incongruent > Neutral > Congruent), while DD2 showed a Congruency pattern related to the numerical distance between stimuli. For DD1 both Congruent as well as Incongruent trials were slower than Neutral trials (p < 0.001) and no effect of numerical distance was evident [F < 1]. In DD2, the canonical pattern typical of the Congruency effect (Incongruent > Congruent) was only present for small distances (e.g., 2-4) (p < 0.05); while the reverse pattern (Congruent > Incongruent) characterized DD2's performance with large numerical distances (e.g., 2-7) (p < 0.05). Main effects are shown in black (DD1's profile). Interaction is shown in shades of green (DD2's profile). Data are mean +- standard error (SE) of the mean. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
case_images: fnhum-08-00038-g0006.jpg
case_images: PMC3916771_01_fnhum-08-00038-g0006.jpg
case_images: F6
case_images: Moreover, DD2 showed a significant congruency effect also in terms of reaction times (Figure 6). Indeed, the behavioral outcome in DD2 is different from the one expected in neuro-typical adults (Figures 5, 6), suggesting that differential strategies might be adopted by the subject while solving the task.
case_images: Average location of subjective responses on the number line task plotted for each type of stimulation. Linear regression lines and equations are indicated for each type of stimulation (Red line:Right Anodal-Left Cathodal stimulation received by DD1; Blue line:Left Anodal-Right Cathodal stimulation received by DD2).
case_images: fnhum-08-00038-g0007.jpg
case_images: PMC3916771_01_fnhum-08-00038-g0007.jpg
case_images: F7
case_images: Namely, as reflected by her performance on the number line task, DD2 generated an accurate representation of the artificial digits; while DD1:who received Right Anodal:Left Cathodal tDCS:did not (Figure 7).