For the Entity video, we considered changes in gaze position when the human-like characters appeared in the scene. Each character was scored as “attention

grabbing” or “non-attention grabbing” depending on whether it produced a gaze shift or not. For the attention grabbing events, we computed additional temporal and spatial parameters to further characterize the attentional shifts (see Figure 2). The Gefitinib clinical trial Entity and No_Entity videos were then presented to a second group of subjects, for fMRI acquisition and “in-scanner” eye movements monitoring. The videos were now presented in two different viewing conditions: with eye movements allowed (overt orienting, as in preliminary study) or with central fixation required (covert orienting;

see also Table S1 in Supplemental Experimental Procedures). Our main fMRI analyses concerned the covert viewing conditions, because this minimizes any intersubjects variability that arises when the same visual stimuli are viewed from different gaze directions (e.g., a “left” visual stimulus, for a subject who looks straight ahead, will become a “central” or even a “right” stimulus for a subject who looks toward the left side). The fMRI MK-2206 datasheet data were analyzed using attention grabbing efficacy indexes derived from the preliminary study, as these should best reflect orienting behavior on the first viewing of the stimuli. Nonetheless, we also analyzed Pullulanase eye movements recorded in the scanner and the corresponding imaging data to compare overt and covert spatial orienting. For the No_Entity video, we tested for brain regions where activity covaried with (1) the mean level of saliency; (2) the distance between the location of maximum salience and the attended position, indexing the efficacy of salience; and (3) the saccades’ frequency. For the Entity video, we performed an event-related analysis time-locked to the appearance

of the characters, thus identifying brain regions responding transiently to these stimuli. We then assessed whether the size of these activations covaried with the attention grabbing effectiveness of each character (grabbing versus non-grabbing characters). Finally, we used data-driven techniques to identify brain regions involved in the processing of the complex and dynamic visual stimuli, without making any a priori assumption about the video content and timing/shape of the BOLD changes. We introduce the interruns covariation analysis (IRC, conceptually derived from the intersubjects correlation analysis first proposed by Hasson et al.