Additional file 1 of Supra-second interval timing in bipolar disorder: examining the role of disorder sub-type, mood, and medication status
Creators: name: Ewald, Victória A. Müller
name: Trapp, Nicholas T.
name: Sarrett, McCall E.
name: Pace, Benjamin D.
name: Wendt, Linder
name: Richards, Jenny G.
name: Gala, Ilisa K.
name: Miller, Jacob N.
name: Wessel, Jan R.
name: Magnotta, Vincent A.
name: Wemmie, John A.
name: Boes, Aaron D.
name: Parker, Krystal L.
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Neuroscience
subject: Physiology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Science Policy
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Mental Health

description: Additional file 1: Figure S1. Power in frequency bands other than theta did not differ between bipolar and control groups. A. To assess task-wide differences in oscillatory activity between bipolar disorder and neuronormative control groups data from the whole interval-timing task were analyzed. B-E. No differences in power were detected between bipolar and control groups for the following frequency bands: delta [B], alpha [C], beta [D], and gamma [E]. Mean and standard error of the mean plotted in bar graphs. Dots represent values from individual subjects. Figure S2. Theta power differs significantly and marginally between bipolar and control participants for short and long intervals respectively. A. Theta power is significantly lower in the BD group compared to the CT group during short interval trials. B. Theta power does not significantly differ between BD and CT groups for long interval trials. * p &lt; 0.05, &amp; p &lt; 0.10. Figure S3. Time-locked short interval oscillatory activity does not differ between bipolar and control groups. A. Data were epoched around the presentation of the short interval timing cue. B. Averaged spectrogram of individuals in the control group [left] and the bipolar group [right]. Exploratory analyses suggest that oscillatory activity does not differ between the two groups during the whole short interval epoch. C. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power following the timing cue does not differ between bipolar and control groups. D. Data were epoched around the short interval button press. E. Averaged spectrogram of individuals in the control group [left] and the bipolar group [right]. Exploratory analyses suggest that oscillatory activity does not differ between the two groups. F. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power prior to the response does not differ between bipolar and control groups. G. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power following the response does not differ between bipolar and control groups. Mean and standard error of the mean plotted in bar graphs. Dots represent values from individual subjects. Figure S4. Time-locked theta power surrounding the long interval response is lower in the bipolar group compared to the control group. A. Data were epoched around the presentation of the long interval timing cue. B. Averaged spectrogram of individuals in the control group [left] and the bipolar group [right]. Exploratory analyses suggest that oscillatory activity does not differ between the two groups during the whole long interval epoch. C. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power following the timing cue does not differ between bipolar and control groups. D. Data were epoched around the long interval button press. E. Averaged spectrogram of individuals in the control group [left] and the bipolar group [right]. Exploratory analyses suggest that oscillatory activity does not differ between the two groups. F. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power prior to the response was lower in the bipolar group compared to the control group. G. ROI-based analyses indicate that theta power following the response was lower in the bipolar group compared to the control group. Mean and standard error of the mean plotted in bar graphs. Dots represent values from individual subjects. * p &lt; 0.05