Areal differences in depth cue integration between monkey and human
Fig 5
(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.