Fig. S1. A basis set of 15 face-place pairs used in decoding phase. Each pair was used twice in each condition, once with the face picture set as target and the other time with the place picture set as target. Note: Copyrighted pictures used in the original experiment have been replaced in the above graphic by their non-copyrighted look-alikes.

Fig. S2. Graph-based visual saliency algorithm was used to select the face-place pairs. Saliency of the 50/50 hybrid and each of its constituents were observed and only those pairs were selected for which the 50/50 hybrid had an equal number of salient points for the face and place picture.

Fig. S3. Stimulus timeline. (A) Example of an attend-face trial in non-feedback condition. (B) Example of an attend-place trial in feedback condition. After cues have been presented, the face-place hybrid image was updated every TR depending on classification result of the preceding TR.

Fig. S4. List of all brain regions from which voxels were selected by the MVA-W classifier for training. Only regions that were activated across three or more subjects were used for further analyses.

Fig. S5. (A) Absolute number of voxels selected in the regions used by classifier for training averaged across the group. (B) Percentage of voxels used per region averaged across the group. Error bars show standard error of the mean.

Fig. S6. (A) Decoding accuracy as a function of TR for feedback and non-feedback condition, and attend-face and attend-place trials that constitute these two conditions. The filled round markers represent significantly above-chance decoding (P < 0.05) whereas the empty markers represent below-chance decoding (> 0.05). (B) Mean decoding accuracy. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Fig. S7. Comparison of percent signal change in feedback and non-feedback conditions. (A) Percent signal change for attend-face trials in feedback and non-feedback condition. The top plots show percent signal change at every TR during a trial (including the 12 s rest period. The bottom plot shows the percent signal change aggregated over the 12 TRs. (B) Percent signal change for attend-place trials in feedback and non-feedback conditions. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Fig. S8. Comparison of prediction probablities of the decoder for feedback and non-feedback conditions. (A) Prediction probability for feedback and non-feedback conditions containing both successful and failed trials. No significant difference was found. (B) Prediction probability for only successful trials in feedback and non-feedback conditions. The prediction probability for feedback trials was significantly higher than non-feedback trials (C) Prediction probability for only failed trials in feedback and non-feedback conditions. The prediction probability for failed trials was significantly stronger (lower) for feedback trials compared to non-feedback trials. Error bars represent standar error of the mean.

Fig. S9. (A) Average decoding performance for classifiers trained on feedback and non-feedback conditions. The classifier trained on the feedback condition was decoded with significantly higher accuracy than the classifier trained on the non-feedback condition. (B). Anatomical regions recruited by the classifiers trained on feedback and non-feedback conditions

ejn12405-sup-0002-MovieS1.mp4MPEG-4 video3217KMovie S1. The movie demonstrates an example of a trial in feedback and non-feedback conditions. Furthermore it shows the actual performance of one particular subject for all attend-face and attend-place trials in the feedback condition.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.