VSDI analysis followed six steps for each experiment: (1) we remo

VSDI analysis followed six steps for each experiment: (1) we removed trials with aberrant VSDI responses (usually < 1% of total trials). In each trial, we divided each frame into four quadrants, and average the fluorescence in each quadrant. A trial was removed if the

average fluorescence at any of the quadrants and frames was out of ± 5 standard deviations across all trials. (2) We normalized the response at each pixel by the average fluorescence across all trials and frames. (3) We subtracted the average 3-MA chemical structure response in blank trials from all individual trials. (4) We cropped all frames to an area of 10 × 8 mm2 with the response peak near the center of the cropped area. (5) We estimated the spatial response maps. In each trial and at each location, we averaged the response within a 200 ms interval after stimulus onset, and then subtracted the average response within a 100 ms interval Selleckchem EPZ 6438 before

stimulus onset to obtain a spatial response map. For each attentional state, we averaged the spatial response maps across all corresponding trials irrespective of behavioral outcome and then fitted the average map with a 2D Gaussian function R(x,y) = a∗G(x,y) + b, where G(x,y) was a Gaussian function and a and b were the amplitudes of the Gaussian and baseline. (6) We estimated the time courses of the Gaussian and the baseline. Because no significant difference was found in the Gaussian component across the three attentional states, we defined the spatiotemporal responses as R(x,y,t) = a(t)∗G(x,y) + b(t), where a(t) and b(t) were the time courses of Gaussian and baseline. We first averaged

the spatial response maps in step 5 across the three attentional states and fitted the average with a 2D Gaussian function to obtain G(x,y). Then, for each attentional state, we projected G(x,y) and the baseline to each frame to calculate a(t) and b(t). All data analysis was performed in MATLAB (Mathworks). We than W. Geisler for the suggesting Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II the toy example in Figure 1 and for helpful discussions. We thank D. Ress, D. Heeger, J. Maunsell, and members of the Seidemann lab for helpful comments and suggestions and T. Cakic for technical support. This work was supported by National Eye Institute Grants EY-016454 and EY-016752. Author contributions: Y.C. and E.S. designed the experiments, Y.C. carried out the experiments and analyzed the data, and Y.C. and E.S. wrote the paper. “
“Neurons in inferior temporal (IT) cortex of the macaque brain respond selectively to complex shapes (Desimone et al., 1984, Fujita et al., 1992, Logothetis and Sheinberg, 1996, Tanaka, 1996, Tanaka, 2003, Tanaka et al., 1991 and Tsunoda et al., 2001).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>