The elderly healthy controls had faster overall RTs (mean = 609 msec) and showed a smaller congruency effect [mean = 14 msec; congruency effect was reliable in elderly controls: t(24) = 3.15, p = .004] than for Patient SA’s alien hand. 1 To directly compare the performance of Patient SA’s alien hand AUY922 to that of healthy elderly controls, we converted the overall mean RT and affordance effect for the alien hand to z-scores, calculated according to the elderly controls’ sample means and SDs. The z-scores for the affordance effect and overall RT shown for Patient SA’s alien hand were 2.82

and 4.24, respectively. As these are both beyond the 95% limits (two-tailed) of the controls’ distributions (95% limits are indicated by a z-score of 1.96), it is unlikely that Patient SA’s effects are simply an extreme case in the normal elderly distribution, and that these effects are due to age. 2 To investigate how often differences like those exhibited by SA’s alien limb exist in healthy controls, we analysed Nintedanib ic50 the individual affordance effects for left and right hands in the young healthy controls previously reported by McBride et al. (2012a), plus the previously unpublished data from elderly healthy controls, mentioned above. None of these healthy adults showed the same pattern of effects shown

by SA, with a significant interaction between the effects of hand and congruency, and a significant asymmetry in overall RT. However, overall RTs in SA’s alien hand were longer than those recorded in the non-alien hand, as well as those reported in young and elderly controls. Therefore, we performed further analyses to investigate the possibility that the difference in congruency effect across Patient SA’s hands was simply attributable to the difference in baseline

RT. We re-plotted the congruency effect as a function of RT in a delta plot (see van den Wildenberg et al., 2010, for a review of this technique and its advantages). For each hand separately, untrimmed (including those trials considered “outliers” for the ANOVA analysis) correct RTs were divided according to trial congruency (congruent Teicoplanin or incongruent), rank-ordered, and then divided into eight bins of equal size. On two trials, no correct response was detected. Data for these trials were replaced with the mean correct RT for that hand and condition (this is a means to keep the total number of trials the same in each condition and dividable by 8, to avoid problems associated with unequal bin sizes). The mean RT in each bin for each condition was then calculated and the difference between incongruent and congruent trials is plotted against the mean RT for that bin (see Fig.