Contralateral biases are common in SEF and PFC too (Funahashi et al., 1989, 1990, 1991; Russo and Bruce, 1996), and we wanted to analyze data from all three areas in the same way for a fair comparison. Single neuron examples are shown for FEF, PFC, and SEF (Figures 2A–2C). Each neuron was active during the early visual response (visual-1) and delay epochs (gray shadings), and each was more active on correct than

incorrect trials in both epochs (t test, p < 0.05). At the population level, all three frontal areas showed this effect (Figures 2D–2F; Table 1). We repeated these analyses using only those neurons that were significantly active within each epoch, and this yielded the same results (Table S3). These findings extend the results Z-VAD-FMK purchase of Thompson and

Schall (1999) to show that visual and delay activity correlate with decisions in a masked target task in the SEF and PFC as well as in FEF. To analyze activity related to decision saccades, PFI-2 manufacturer we compared the correct and incorrect trials for which a saccade was made into the contralateral field. We analyzed activity just before and after the saccade (presaccadic-1 and postsaccade epochs, respectively). Only the SEF population had activity in these epochs that differentiated correct from incorrect decisions (Table 1). Repeating this analysis on the subsets of neurons active within each epoch (i.e., only neurons with significant pre- or postsaccadic activity), SEF neurons were more active during correct than incorrect decisions within the postsaccade epoch (Table S3) but not the presaccadic-1 epoch. FEF and PFC showed no effect in either epoch. We expected bet-related activity to resemble decision-related activity, given the high trial-by-trial correlations between decisions and bets: correct decisions were mostly followed Amisulpride by high bets and incorrect decisions by low bets (Table S2). To analyze bet-related activity explicitly, we compared high bet with low bet trials regardless of preceding decisions (i.e., pooled correct

and incorrect trials). The results, as expected, were similar to those from the decision-related activity analysis and are summarized in the Supplemental Information (Bet-related activity section of Supplemental Results; Tables S4 and S5). To test whether neuronal activity correlated with metacognitive monitoring, we compared trials when the monkey made the same decision but different bets. Our rationale was that metacognition is the process that links a decision to a bet, allowing for purposeful wagering instead of random wagering. Signals related to metacognition should differ between trials when a decision is followed by an appropriate versus inappropriate bet. We first compared neuronal activity between correct-high (CH) and correct-low (CL) trials.