The figures presented are shown with ± one standard deviation. KP did not demonstrate any decrements in intellectual function or memory following surgery for her right-hemisphere cavernoma, when tested 15 weeks after

surgery (see Table 1). There were no significant changes in focal cognitive ability, except a very mild decline in her performance on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, on which she was considered borderline impaired, whereas she had previously been Selleck Epacadostat average. KP was tested once on the STOP task, on the second occasion we saw her (Table 1). The SSRT provides an estimate of the time required for an individual to correctly inhibit an initial response on 50% of trials. On this task KP’s SSRT (150 msec) was not significantly different (t = −.78; p > .22) to the control group (mean = 177 msec, SD = 32.1; Fig. 3A). KP’s leftward SSRT was longer than rightwards (12 msec), but this deviation was not significantly different to the controls (t = .29; p > .39) who also showed slightly greater leftward slowing (7.3 msec, SD = 15.4). In terms of GO reaction

time, KP (532 msec) was not significantly different to the control group (mean = 434, SD = 114.3; t = .82). She demonstrated virtually no lateralisation in GO reaction time, being only 2 msec quicker when making leftward responses. This was not significantly different to the control group (t = −.14; p > .45), who overall were slightly slower when making leftward responses (5 msec, SD = 20.9). Thus, KP’s performance on the STOP task was entirely within normal Proteasome inhibition limits when assessed (Session 2, S2). KP was tested three times on the CHANGE task over the course of 10 weeks (see Table 1). Performance on this paradigm uses a similar metric to the STOP-signal paradigm, however here the CHANGE-signal reaction time (CSRT) reflects the time

taken to inhibit an initial response and then correctly execute a second response on 50% of trials. In the first session (S1), four weeks after surgery, KP’s CSRT (382 msec) was significantly higher (t = 2.85; p < .01) than the control group (mean = 268 msec, SD = 37.7), see Fig. 3B. KP also demonstrated a highly significant lateralisation in CSRT (t = 2.6; p < .005; paired-samples t-test), with leftward CSRT 46 msec slower than rightward. This lateralisation was significantly different to the Thymidine kinase control group (t = 2.61; p < .028), who demonstrated a leftward slowing of only 6 msec (SD = 4.6). Both leftward and rightward CSRT measurements were still highly significantly different to the controls (t = 3.05; p < .007). Importantly, in terms of GO reaction time KP (mean = 435 msec) was not significantly slower than the control group (mean = 395 msec, SD = 160.1; t = .24). She did demonstrate an increased latency in responding to leftward GO signals (11 msec), but this was also not significantly different to the controls (t = −.17) who showed a similar lateralisation (mean = 14.9 msec, SD = 21.9).