✕Not reproducedFig. 4d,l,m; Results, Representation of visual stimulus, paragraph 7
The latency of the stimulus trajectory separation ordered the visual regions as LGd < VISp, which is about equal to LP, < VISpm < VISam, at about 34, 42, 42, 57 and 78 ms.
A spatiotemporally finely resolved view of latency differences was obtained, such that LGd < VISp ≈ LP < VISpm < VISam (latencies of around 34, 42, 42, 57 and 78 ms, respectively
Fig. 4d,l,m; Results, Representation of visual stimulus, paragraph 7
Latencies (Methods' definition) LGd 31.7, VISp 46.5, LP 48.6, VISpm 61.3, VISam 59.2 ms. LGd is first and VISp and LP are within 10 ms, but VISam is not later than VISpm, and VISp, LP and VISam are outside 10% of 42, 42 and 78 ms. The code's significance condition and its 0 to 100 ms window change the values by less than 1 ms. The paper's results table (meta/Results/stim.pkl) gives 34.0, 44.7, 46.8, 59.6 and 66.0 ms, closer to these values than the text is for VISp, LP, VISpm and VISam, and also has VISam later than VISpm. All five distances are significant (p = 0.001). With the 16 region-sessions of invalid blocks included the five latencies are unchanged. The code's canonical-window variant now keeps the full window's baseline, as the code does, and gives 31.9, 46.8, 48.9, 61.7 and 59.6 ms.
How the test differed from the paper’s method
- The 64 sessions whose probability_left alternates on every trial are left out. Here 16 region-sessions.
- Trials follow the mask here, without the saturation intervals the code uses.
- The Methods define latency as the first crossing of 70% of the range; the code adds point-wise significance. The Methods' definition decides; the code's is a variant and gives the same values here.