late TMS: t(10) = 4.87, P < 0.01, one-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05; intermediate TMS vs. late TMS: t(10) = 5.58, P < 0.01, one-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05). When we applied TMS in the early time window, performance on both stack and frame stimuli deteriorated, whereas TMS applied in the late time window selectively disrupted detection of stack stimuli. 0Next, we wanted to find out what kinds of errors were being made in the different TMS conditions (see Fig. 4). Analysis of the errors showed that stacks were more seen as frames and vice versa when TMS was applied in an early

time window (for frames seen as stacks: early compared with all other TMS conditions, all ts(10) >2.38, all Ps <0.005, two-tailed, FDR Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical corrected, P < 0.05; for stacks seen as Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical frames: early vs. no TMS, t(10) = 2.30, P < 0.05, two-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05 and early vs. intermediate TMS, t(10) = 2.88, P < 0.05, two-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05). However, when TMS was applied in a late time window selectively stacks were being more often mistakenly seen as frames (late TMS vs. no TMS, t(10) = 3.44, P < 0.01, two-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05 and late TMS vs. intermediate TMS, t(10) = 3.93, P < 0.01,

two-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05). Figure 4 Types of errors are plotted for stacks and frames for the different transcranial magnetic stimulation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (TMS) conditions. When TMS was applied in an early time window, stacks and frames are more frequently being mixed up (A and C). When TMS was applied ... RT analysis showed no interaction Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical between stimulus type and TMS timing (F(6, 60) = 0.59, P = 0.75) but did show significant main effects of stimulus type (F(2, 20) = 3.95, P = 0.04) and TMS timing (F(3, 30) = 13.89, P < 0.001). Participants responded fastest to homogenous Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical stimuli (mean RT homogenous = 589 msec, SD = 63; mean RT frame = 647 msec, SD = 60; mean RT stack = 614 msec, SD = 73; homogenous vs. frame, t(10) = 3.93, P < 0.01, two-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05) and when no TMS was applied (mean RT no TMS = 588 msec, SD = 43;

mean RT early TMS = 620 msec, SD = 60; mean RT intermediate TMS = 621, SD = 57; mean RT late TMS = 639, SD = 59). As we did not find an RT interaction effect of stimulus type and TMS timing, it seems very unlikely that the interaction effect found in performance scores was DNA ligase influenced by a speed–accuracy trade-off. Furthermore, TMS generally (disregarding timing and stimulus type) made participants respond more slowly and less accurate instead of faster and less accurate. Analysis of data gathered during sham stimulation revealed that our selleck chemicals behavioral performance effects were not caused by unspecific TMS effects. No interaction effect (TMS timing × stimulus type, F(6, 36) = 0.46, P = 0.83) or main effect of TMS timing (F(3, 18) = 1.11, P = 0.37) was found when we applied sham TMS over early visual cortex.