54, p = .001], and this slowing was particularly pronounced with categorization [t(12.65) = 3.88, p = .002] compared with naming rules [t(12.88) = 2.58, p = .02] [Rule × Group: F(1, 24) = 9.88, p = .004]. Confirming both predictions, stage II PD patients displayed a SC deficit [Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = 19.4, p < .001], which was greater with categorization rules [Rule × Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = 11.4, FK228 p = .002]: in comparison to controls, Stage II patients displayed a 51.7 ms inflation (68% increase) in naming SC [t(24) = 2.29, p = .03], and a 199.6 ms SC inflation (134% increase) with categorization rules [t(12.88) = 4.1, p = .001]. Comparison of the PD groups confirmed slower performance for

the stage II group [F(1, 22) = 11.81, p = .002], revealing deficits with both categorization [t(14.14) = 3.83, p = .002] and attentional selection [t(14.31) = 2.39, p = 0.03] [Rule × Group: F(1, 22) = 9.88, p = .005], and greater SC [Trial type × Group: F(1, 22) = 16.16, p = .001]. The 3-way interaction was also significant [Rule × Trial type × Group: F(1,22) = 8.19, p = .009]. In comparison to stage I patients, the stage II group displayed a 120% SC inflation when reconfiguring categorization rules, hence both stimulus and response sets [t(14.25) = 3.79, p = .002] and a 72% SC inflation when switching between stimulus sets only with naming rules [t(22) = 2.52, p = .02]. The frontal lesion patients were also slower than controls https://www.selleckchem.com/products/jq1.html [F(1,

24) = 9.02, p = .006] and, as predicted, demonstrated greater deficits with categorization [t(13.53) = 2.83, p = .01] compared to naming rules [t(17.74) = 2.51, p = .02] [Rule × Group: F(1, 24) = 6.49, p = .02].

Although there was evidence for an overall SC impairment in this patient group [Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = 4.56, p = .043], the Reverse transcriptase deficit was specific to switching between categorization rules, consistently with the proposed sensitivity of this condition in engendering rule reconfiguration on a switch [Rule × Trial type × Group: F(1, 24) = 6.2, p = .02]. The frontal patient group revealed a significant 59% increase in abstract rule SC compared to controls [t(14.58) = 2.41, p = .03], but no deficit in switching between naming rules was present [t(24) = 1.06, p = .3]. Comparison of L and R frontal lesion patients indicated no overall performance differences [effect of lesion laterality: F(1, 10) = .24, p = .64] and no interactions were significant (all F < 1). To control for the effects of response repetition, the data were reanalysed once these trials had been excluded, and all results held across all group comparisons. The Group × Rule × Switch interaction of interest was significant in the overall group analysis [F(3, 46) = 4.98, p = .004] and remained unchanged in the individual patient group analyses: Stage I PD patients were unimpaired compared with controls [F < 1]. In the Stage II patients versus controls ANOVA, the 3-way interaction [F(1, 24) = 14.