pbio.2006405.g005.tif (586 kB)

Congruency and transfer test.

Download (687.57 kB)
posted on 29.03.2019 by Marcelo Armendariz, Hiroshi Ban, Andrew E. Welchman, Wim Vanduffel

(A) Prediction accuracy for near versus far classification when cues are congruent or incongruent in different ROIs. The horizontal line at 0.5 corresponds to chance performance. Error bars, SEM; *P < 0.01 uncorrected; **P < 0.01 Bonferroni corrected. (B) Prediction accuracy for the cross-cue transfer analysis in different regions. Classification performances are shown when data were trained and tested with the same cue (within-cue, dark purple), trained with one cue and tested with the other (cross-cue, cyan), and for randomly permuted data (light purple). Error bars, SEM. (C) Data shown as a transfer index. A value of 100% would indicate that prediction accuracies were equivalent for within- and between-cue testing. Distribution plots show the median; cyan area and error bars represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Purple dotted horizontal lines depict a bootstrapped chance baseline based on the upper 95th percentile for transfer obtained with randomly permuted data. *P < 0.01 uncorrected; **P < 0.01 Bonferroni corrected. The underlying data for the figures can be found at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.6pm117m. CIP, caudal intraparietal area; DP, dorsal prelunate area; FST, fundus of the superior temporal sulcus area; LIP, lateral intraparietal area; MST, medial superior temporal sulcus area; MT, middle temporal area; OT, occipitotemporal area; PIP, posterior intraparietal area; PIT, posterior inferotemporal area; ROI, region of interest.