06, P < 0.0001, η2 = 0.45) and stimulus type (F2,98 = 233.66, P < 0.0001, η2 = 0.83). There were significant two-way interactions Epigenetic inhibitor between group and time (F1,49 = 33.50, P <0.0001, η2 = 0.41), group and stimulus type (F2,98 = 3.55, P < 0.05, η2 = 0.07), and time and stimulus type (F2,98 = 6.74, P < 0.005, η2 = 0.12). We also found a three-way interaction among group, time and stimulus type (F2,98 = 7.75, P < 0.005, η2 = 0.14). A control analysis indicated no significant differences among patients receiving different dopamine agonists (F < 1, P > 0.5). Tukey HSD tests yielded no difference between patients

with PD and control individuals at baseline (P > 0.5). At follow-up, patients with PD showed higher levels of scene recognition performance relative to control individuals when distractors and targets were presented with the scenes in the trial sequence (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively). Within-group comparisons revealed good test–retest characteristics in control individuals (baseline vs. follow-up: P > 0.5; correlations: r > 0.7). In PD, we observed enhanced scene recognition performances at follow-up relative to baseline when scenes were presented with targets and distractors (P < 0.01), but not when scenes were presented alone in the trial sequence (P > 0.5; Fig. 3). There was a significant positive relationship PARP activation between recognition improvements for scenes presented with targets and distractors in the trial sequence (r = 0.72, P < 0.001).

In patients with PD, there was no significant correlation between the recall of distractor letters and the recognition of scenes paired with distractors (r = 0.16). The anova conducted on the mean response time indicated significant main effects of group (F1,49 = 14.73, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.23)

and time (F1,49 = 10.37, P < 0.005, η2 = 0.17). The interaction between group and time was also significant (F1,49 = 7.53, P < 0.05, η2 = 0.13). The post hoc analysis confirmed that patients with PD responded slower than controls at baseline (P < 0.0001) and follow-up (P < 0.05). Within-group comparisons revealed that in PD the response time was faster at follow-up relative to baseline (P < 0.005), whereas in control volunteers response latency showed a marked stability over time (baseline vs. follow-up, P = 0.98). Other measures of the ANT did not show Cepharanthine significant alterations in PD compared with control individuals (P > 0.1; Figs 4 and 5). There were no significant correlations between ANT and ABT measures (−0.2 < r < 0.2, P > 0.1). We calculated correlation coefficients between changes in UPDRS, HAM-D and BIS-11 attention scores and changes in scene recognition when scenes were presented with targets and distractors (change: follow-up–baseline). Given that this analysis was exploratory, we used Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. We found significant correlation between changes in BIS-11 attention scores and changes in recognition performance for distractor-associated scenes (r = 0.