Summary of tasks performed by participants.
PTSD
Each participant performed every task. There was a conscious and nonconscious version of the emotional faces task.First level general linear models were performed for each task and contrast images generated for each task for every participant. We then employed a region of interest (ROI) analysis approach for second level analyses. For the emotional face processing task, we selected ROIs based on networks involved in positive and negative emotion processing [As done in our previous work using the 3 tasks, contrast images reflecting response inhibition in the Go/No-Go task were created by comparing No-Go trials to Go trials and to the implicit baseline. Contrast images for the emotional faces processing tasks (conscious and nonconscious) were derived by comparing each affective expression (angry, fearful, happy, sad, disgust) to the neutral condition or to the implicit baseline and were entered as a within-subjects factor in a repeated-measures design. For the reappraisal task, the contrast image for cognitive reappraisal was created by comparing Think vs Watch trials, and the contrast image for emotional reactivity was created by comparing Watch trials to Neutral trials.To evaluate activation changes over the course of therapy, each participant’s baseline contrast image was subtracted from their post-treatment contrast image. This produced a ‘delta’ contrast image which reflected the degree of change in activation between the two scans which was then used to evaluate voxel-wise correlations with each participant’s CAPS-change score to identify brain regions associated with treatment response (at For functional connectivity analyses, a generalized psychophysiological interaction (gPPI; [To compare the treatment related neural changes observed in the PTSD group with controls, we performed a voxelwise linear mixed model analysis using a MATLAB based toolbox called 