A methodological

advantage of the present study is that each patient group was compared to the same matched control group. The PD groups were also directly compared to each other as were the L and R frontal lesion patients. Simple interaction effects were tested in those 5-Fluoracil cases where the higher order interaction term was significant and independent samples t-tests addressed group differences. Welch-Satterthwaite adjustment to the degrees of freedom and error term correction were applied in those cases where the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated. Furthermore, a separate analysis controlled for the effects of response repetitions, which as discussed above occurred only on repeat trials in the abstract rule GDC-0449 solubility dmso condition due to the use of vocal responses, and were included to prevent the adoption of a default response switch strategy on repeat trials. Response repetitions are known to decrease RT on repeat and inflate RT on switch trials (e.g., Rogers & Monsell, 1995), thereby potentially increasing SC magnitude. Thus, to ensure that any differences in switching performance between rule conditions were not confounded by response repetition, the data were reanalysed after these trials were excluded. The relevant 3-way interaction (Group × Rule × Trial type) was re-examined in each group analysis. Reaction time was longer with categorization compared with naming rules [effect

of rule: F(1, 46) = 132.67, p < .0001], reflecting a difference in cognitive load between applying a categorical judgment

to an attended stimulus and simply 上海皓元医药股份有限公司 vocalizing its identity. SC was also present [effect of trial type: F(1, 46) = 254.53, p < .0001]. There were group differences in terms of overall RT [F(3, 46) = 8.01, p < .0001], as a function of rule type [Rule × Group: F(3, 46) = 6.01, p = .002] and switching [Trial type × Group: F(3, 46) = 8.69, p < .0001]. As anticipated, greater SCs were observed when switching between categorization compared with naming rules [Trial type × Rule: F(1, 46) = 99.55, p < .001], mirroring the demands of rule reconfiguration required to switch both stimulus and response sets (with categorization rules) rather than just stimulus set (naming rules). Critically, the magnitude of this difference varied between groups [Trial type x Rule x Group: F(3, 46) = 6.48, p = .001]. These differences are addressed below and presented graphically in Figure 3a, b. There was no effect of group [F(1, 24) = 0.001, p = .98] or group differences as a function of rule type [Rule × Group: F(1, 24) = 0.5, p = .49]. Stage I PD patients displayed intact SC [Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = .06, p = .8] in both rule conditions [Rule × Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = 0.31, p = .59]. T-tests confirmed intact switching with both naming [t(24) = .44, p = .66] and abstract categorization rules [t(24) = .12, p = .91].