Table 1 LMEs analysis results within the bilateral insula demonstrating an interaction of Group (CW, RAN) by Condition (anticipation, soft touch) and a main effect of Condition for the soft touch paradigm

From: Neural hypersensitivity to pleasant touch in women remitted from anorexia nervosa

 

Post Hoc comparisons

Region

L/R

Volume (voxels)

X

Y

Z

F-value

Comparison

z

p(FDR)

 Main effect of condition

Insula

L

186

− 35

− 9

3

26.34

Soft Touch > Anticipation

4.36

 < 0.001

R

169

35

− 2

5

21.69

Soft Touch > Anticipation

4.23

 < 0.001

Dorsal putamen

L

423

− 21

0

6

28.96

Soft Touch > Anticipation

4.59

 < 0.001

R

168

27

− 3

2

34.99

Soft Touch > Anticipation

4.86

 < 0.001

Dorsal caudate

R

224

14

8

14

27.31

Soft Touch > Anticipation

4.47

 < 0.001

 Group × Condition

Ventral mid-insula

R

15

41

− 1

− 8

11.83

CW: Soft Touch > Anticipation

3.53

 < 0.001

     

Anticipation: CW > RAN

1.97

0.049

     

Soft Touch: RAN > CW

2.27

0.028

     

RAN: Soft Touch > Anticipation

6.98

 < 0.001

  1. Note: Although both groups had a greater response during touch receipt vs. anticipation in the right ventral mid-insula, RAN had lower responses during anticipation but greater responses during soft touch compared to CW. Center of mass coordinates reported in MNI space. Small volume correction was determined with Monte-Carlo simulations (via AFNI’s 3dClustSim) to guard against false positives. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using glht from the multcomp package in R to calculate general linear hypotheses using Tukey’s all-pair comparisons, and p-values were FDR adjusted. CW healthy comparison women, L left, LME linear mixed effects, R right, RAN women remitted from anorexia nervosa.
Back to article page