%0 Figure %A Helmer, Markus %A Kozyrev, Vladislav %A Stephan, Valeska %A Treue, Stefan %A Geisel, Theo %A Battaglia, Demian %D 2016 %T Effects found in the data depend on model. %U https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/_Effects_found_in_the_data_depend_on_model_/1638924 %R 10.1371/journal.pone.0146500.g005 %2 https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/6579387 %K attentional gain modulations %K attentional modulation patterns %K approach %K MT %K Noisy Data Tuning curves %K response %K model selection %K data-driven methods %X

A) Nine features, measuring aspects of firing rate (first column), width (second column) and global shape (third column) in all three conditions were calculated for each cell on the basis of eight fitted models (model abbreviations are as in Fig 3) and the “best model” (according to the ΔAIC = 0 criterion, see main text; abbreviated “bM”). Red (blue) indicates a statistically significant (not sig.) difference between two models’ values of that feature. Results from the spatially separated and transparent paradigm are plotted below and above the diagonal, respectively. The panels indicate that, in general, models disagree on the value of a feature, and, in particular, might contradict the optimal (bM) model. B) Histograms count for all feature pairs (depending on their category “sp.sep vs trans”, “sp.sep vs sp.sep” or “trans vs trans”) the number of model functions that find a significant difference (“effect”) between the pair. While mostly all models agree (counts 0 and 9) there are also numerous cases in which the presence of an effect depends on the chosen model.

%I PLOS ONE