On of the eyetracking apparatus). After each animation, participants were asked to describe freely what they had seen. Their answers were recorded for off-line scoring by two raters blind to group membership.Frith-Happ?Paradigm. We used the full-size version of the 12 Frith-Happ?animation. All animations fea-Accuracy/intentionality scales. Answers were evaluated according to three dimensions using the usual scoring criteria provided by Castelli et al.51: intentionality (mentalistic complexity of the vocabulary used, 0? points), appropriateness (degree of correctness of descriptions, 0? points) and length scales (number of utterances, 1? points). The inter-rater correlation was high (mean weighted Cohen’s kappa across the 3 scales: 0.81) and the two raters’ scores were averaged. Contingency/intentionality scale. The aforementioned intentionality scale mixes indices of AZD3759 site contingency (whether the described actions imply a connection, an interaction or an influence between the two triangles) and intentionality (whether the described actions have been done on purpose). For example, the fourth step of the scale is “deliberate action in response to other’s action” which involves both contingency and intentionality. This might be a problem, as intentionality and contingency have been characterized as two separate dimensions in schizophrenia22,23. For this reason, we have designed a new scale aiming at disentangling these two dimensions in participant’s answers. The described actions for every animation were classified according to 4 categories: intentional contingent, intentional non-contingent, mechanical contingent and mechanical non-contingent (see Supplementary Information 3 for a GW 4064 site complete description of the rating procedure). The four scores obtained for each trial showed high inter-rater correlation (mean weighted Cohen’s kappa across the 4 categories: 0.82) and the two raters’ scores were averaged. Fixation duration. After the exclusion of blinks, fixations were automatically detected with the EyeLink software algorithm (SR Research, Ontario, Canada) according to the following thresholds: eye velocity below 30?sec, eye acceleration below 8000?sec2 and eye movement amplitude smaller than 0.1? This algorithm is designed to avoid short fixations (less than 100 ms in duration). Triangle time. We considered that the gaze fell within a triangle if it fell within a circle whose center was the barycenter of the triangle and whose radius was the distance between the barycenter and the furthest corner of the triangle plus 1? Triangle time was calculated as the cumulative duration of gaze within either the blue or the red triangle, divided by the total length of the animation.Eye movement measures.Statistical analyses. We first ran repeated-measures ANOVAs on accuracy, intentionality and length of ver-bal descriptions with Group as the between-subject factor and Condition as the within-subject factor. We then ran a repeated-measures ANOVA on the number of described actions with Group and as the between-subject factor, and Condition, Intentionality, and Contingency as the within-subject factors. We finally ran repeated-measures ANOVA on fixation durations and triangle time with Group as the between-subject factor and Condition as the within-subject factor. Results were corrected for sphericity using the Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) method where appropriate. In a second step, we ran the same models as ANOVAs, adding covariates that might be confounding fact.On of the eyetracking apparatus). After each animation, participants were asked to describe freely what they had seen. Their answers were recorded for off-line scoring by two raters blind to group membership.Frith-Happ?Paradigm. We used the full-size version of the 12 Frith-Happ?animation. All animations fea-Accuracy/intentionality scales. Answers were evaluated according to three dimensions using the usual scoring criteria provided by Castelli et al.51: intentionality (mentalistic complexity of the vocabulary used, 0? points), appropriateness (degree of correctness of descriptions, 0? points) and length scales (number of utterances, 1? points). The inter-rater correlation was high (mean weighted Cohen’s kappa across the 3 scales: 0.81) and the two raters’ scores were averaged. Contingency/intentionality scale. The aforementioned intentionality scale mixes indices of contingency (whether the described actions imply a connection, an interaction or an influence between the two triangles) and intentionality (whether the described actions have been done on purpose). For example, the fourth step of the scale is “deliberate action in response to other’s action” which involves both contingency and intentionality. This might be a problem, as intentionality and contingency have been characterized as two separate dimensions in schizophrenia22,23. For this reason, we have designed a new scale aiming at disentangling these two dimensions in participant’s answers. The described actions for every animation were classified according to 4 categories: intentional contingent, intentional non-contingent, mechanical contingent and mechanical non-contingent (see Supplementary Information 3 for a complete description of the rating procedure). The four scores obtained for each trial showed high inter-rater correlation (mean weighted Cohen’s kappa across the 4 categories: 0.82) and the two raters’ scores were averaged. Fixation duration. After the exclusion of blinks, fixations were automatically detected with the EyeLink software algorithm (SR Research, Ontario, Canada) according to the following thresholds: eye velocity below 30?sec, eye acceleration below 8000?sec2 and eye movement amplitude smaller than 0.1? This algorithm is designed to avoid short fixations (less than 100 ms in duration). Triangle time. We considered that the gaze fell within a triangle if it fell within a circle whose center was the barycenter of the triangle and whose radius was the distance between the barycenter and the furthest corner of the triangle plus 1? Triangle time was calculated as the cumulative duration of gaze within either the blue or the red triangle, divided by the total length of the animation.Eye movement measures.Statistical analyses. We first ran repeated-measures ANOVAs on accuracy, intentionality and length of ver-bal descriptions with Group as the between-subject factor and Condition as the within-subject factor. We then ran a repeated-measures ANOVA on the number of described actions with Group and as the between-subject factor, and Condition, Intentionality, and Contingency as the within-subject factors. We finally ran repeated-measures ANOVA on fixation durations and triangle time with Group as the between-subject factor and Condition as the within-subject factor. Results were corrected for sphericity using the Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) method where appropriate. In a second step, we ran the same models as ANOVAs, adding covariates that might be confounding fact.

http://www.rockinhibitor.com

ROCK inhibitors