Post-error slowing.

<p>Correct responses following erroneous responses (posterror trials) are compared with correct responses following response-matched correct responses (postcorrect trials). Reaction times are given in milliseconds.</p

Brain areas activated during the decision phase.

<p>The contrasts of interest for the decision phase yielded several regions defined by strength of effect (p<0.001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons) and size (10 or more voxel). The stereotaxic coordinates of the peak of the activation are given according to Talairach space, together with the F-value for the cluster peak.</p

Response-locked ERPs on midline electrodes FZ and CZ for correct (thin lines) and erroneous (thick lines) responses.

<p>Stick-positions are coded by line style.</p

Experimental setup.

<p>The photos show the typical facial expressions induced by the chop stick in the smile and no-smile conditions.</p

Brain regions correlating with behavioral provocation effect.

<p>The covariate analysis regarding the outcome phase of the first run and correlations with the behavioral provocation effect yielded several regions defined by correlation (p<0.0001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons; FDR q<0.02) and size (10 or more voxel). The stereotaxic coordinates of the peak of the activation are given according to Talairach space together with the r-value for the cluster peak.</p

Results of the EWL-60-S questionnaire; Data were collected on a separate sample, Facial Feedback group is coded by line color.

<p>Items summarized according to the EWL-60-S-manual. Scores are based on difference post-experimental EWL-60-S minus pre-experimental EWL-60-S results; positive values indicate that people loaded higher on this scale after completion of the EEG experiment. Error bars indicate +/−1 SE.</p

Imaging results for the decision phase.

<p><b>A</b> shows the main effect of provocation with an increased BOLD response in the dorsal ACC and below the corresponding beta values separately for the two groups (TRP- left and BAL right). In <b>B</b> depicted the main effect of the group factor with a higher BOLD response in the insula for the BAL group. Below the corresponding beta values separately for the two groups (TRP- left and BAL right).</p

Error-likelihood effects.

<p>Error-likelihood effects of OCD and control participants. Bar graphs of the mean amplitude difference of correct Yes responses (hits) and No responses (correct rejections) at electrode sites Fz and Cz (0–100 ms) for EL-learning (reduced conflict) and EF-learning (high conflict).</p

Design of the mirror experiment.

<p>The photos show the four conditions of the 2 x 2 factorial design. The two conditions (A,B) with direct view on both forearms are shown in the top row. The two mirror conditions (bottom row) in which the participant visually perceives the non-itching (left) forearm in place of the itching (right) forearm (C) and in which the subject’s view on the scratching of the itching (right) forearm is prevented by the mirror (D). The injection site is masked by red color patches at homologue skin sites on both forearms to prevent visual identification of the itching forearm. The lightning symbol indicates the itching (right) forearm. S-: scratching at the non-itching (left) forearm; S+: scratching at the itching (right) forearm; V-: visual percept that the non-itching (left) forearm is being scratched; V+: visual percept that the itching (right) forearm is being scratched. </p