Supplementary Figure 6: Other activity does not predict behavioral effects.

To confirm that context reward was specifically modulated by scene reinstatement in the PPA, we also repeated the quartiles analysis to look for an effect of activity or classifier evidence in several other regions of interest. a. Univariate activity in PPA. Across quartiles and subjects, neither reminded trial (mean slope=−0.0422, SEM 0.0397, t(31)=1.0205, P=0.3154), nor reminded context (mean slope=−0.0162, SEM 0.0184, t(31)= 0.8765, P=0.3875) showed a relationship with PPA activity, nor did we observe an interaction between these relationships (t(31)=0.3136, P=0.7559). b. The same analysis was repeated for a region of interest that was differentially responsive to the “scrambled” scenes that were used as a control in our localizer task. Across quartiles and subjects, neither reminded trial (mean slope=0.0194, SEM 0.0479, t(31)=0.3949, P=0.6956), nor reminded context (mean slope=−0.0214, SEM 0.0212, t(31)=1.0085, P=0.3210) showed a relationship with univariate activity levels in this ROI, nor did we observe an interaction between these relationships (t(31)=0.6750, P=0.5047). c. We trained classifiers to decode “scrambled scene” evidence and scene evidence from this ROI. Neither reminded trial (mean slope=−0.0033, SEM 0.0160, t(31)=0.2048, P=0.8391), nor reminded context (mean slope=0.0314, SEM 0.0200, t(31)=1.5707, P=0.1264) showed a relationship with “scrambled scene” evidence, nor did we observe an interaction between these effects (t(31)=1.4886, P=0.1467). d. Neither reminded trial (mean slope=0.0041, SEM 0.0132, t(31)=0.3079, P=0.7602), nor reminded context (mean slope=0.0185, SEM 0.0158, t(31)=1.1678, P=0.2518) showed a relationship with scene evidence in this ROI, nor did we observe an interaction between these effects (t(31)=0.6751, P=0.5046). Error bars are +/- 1 SEM.