5, p < 0.001 (see Table 1), and there was an effect of Key (368, 285, 306, 313, 320, 225 ms respectively for Key 1–6), F(5, 70) = 11.8, ε = 0.50, p < 0.001. The decrease in RT as a function GSK-3 cancer of Block

was larger for unfamiliar sequences than for familiar sequences, as was shown by a significant interaction between Familiarity and Block, F(2, 28) = 8.8, p = 0.001. The interaction between Familiarity and Key is shown in Fig. 3, F(5, 70) = 5.4, p < 0.001. Post-hoc tests showed that especially key fourth and fifth key were executed faster in the familiar sequence as compared to the unfamiliar sequence, F(1, 11) < 21.3, p = 0.001. More correct responses were made for familiar than for unfamiliar sequences (95 vs. 88%), F(1, 14) = 34.3, p < 0.001. The number of correct responses increased Cell Cycle inhibitor during the test phase, F(2, 28) = 13.5, p < 0.001, and there was an effect of Key, F(5, 70) = 6.9, ε = 0.39, p = 0.002. The effect of Key showed that participants made increasingly more errors towards the end of the sequence except for the last key, which was probably due to a recency effect (mean PC for key 1–6 respectively; 95%, 93%,

91%, 90%, 88%, 91%). Although the interaction between Familiarity and Key was not significant (F(5, 70) = 2.3, p = .104), this effect can mainly be attributed to unfamiliar sequences as most errors were made in this condition (mean PC for key 1–6 for familiar sequences respectively; 97%, 95%, 96% 94%, 93%, 94% and for unfamiliar sequences respectively; 93%, 91%, 87%, 85%, 84%, 88%). There was a larger increase in the number of correct responses for unfamiliar sequences compared to familiar sequences, as was shown by the interaction between Familiarity and Block,

F(2, 28) = 5.5, p = 0.01. Finally, on 6.4% of the no-go trials a response was given. In sum, participants became faster and made more correct responses during the test phase, especially with unfamiliar sequences. Fossariinae This indicates that participants still learned the sequences during the test phase, especially unfamiliar sequences. Furthermore, execution was faster for familiar than for unfamiliar sequences, which is probably related to the faster initiation and execution of chunks in familiar sequences. The CNV at Fz, Cz, and Pz electrodes for left and right hand sequences and the topographic maps for activity averaged across the 200 ms interval before the go/nogo signal are displayed in Fig. 4.1Fig. 4 reveals an increased CNV for unfamiliar sequences at Cz, a comparable CNV for familiar and unfamiliar sequences at Pz, and an increased positivity at Fz (increased for familiar sequences with left hand sequences and increased for unfamiliar sequences with right hand sequences). Inspection of the topographic maps shows a parietal negative maximum for familiar and unfamiliar sequences, preceding both left and right hand responses.