A fundamental organizing principle of sensory cortex is the topographic mapping of stimulus dimensions (Mountcastle, 1957; Kaas, 1997). For instance, visual areas contain maps of the visual field, wherein the spatial arrangement of an image is preserved such that nearby neurons represent adjacent points in the visual field (Inouye, 1909; Holmes, 1918). At a larger scale, multiple visual field maps are arranged in clusters, in which several adjacent polar angle representations share a common eccentricity representation (Wandell et al., 2005, 2007; Kolster et al., 2009). These clusters are thought to form larger, more efficient processing units by sharing computational resources and minimizing the length of axons connecting the portions of the maps with similar spatial receptive fields (Wandell et al., 2005). Furthermore, it has been suggested that clusters, rather than individual visual field maps, organize specializations in cortical function (Bartels and Zeki, 2000). To date, more than 20 visual field maps have been identified in the human brain, several of which are organized into clusters (Wandell et al., 2005, 2007; Larsson and Heeger, 2006; Wandell and Winawer, 2011; Arcaro and Kastner, 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Barton and Brewer, 2017).

Recently, using modified versions of the standard traveling wave method for mapping early visual cortex, several labs have identified representations of polar angle along the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in posterior parietal cortex and the precentral sulcus (PCS) in frontal cortex (Sereno et al., 2001; Schluppeck et al., 2005; Silver et al., 2005; Kastner et al., 2007; Swisher et al., 2007; Jerde et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, these maps have attracted a great deal of attention given their presumed involvement in a wide range of cognitive and sensorimotor processes, including attention, working memory, and decision-making (Posner et al., 1984; Wilkins et al., 1987; Bechara et al., 1994; Manes et al., 2002; Mackey et al., 2016a, 2016b). Some of these visual maps may correspond to the human homologs of well-characterized areas in the macaque brain that are topographically organized, like the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) and the frontal eye field (FEF). Yet, such inter-species homology and how these maps contribute to different aspects of behavior and cognition remain unknown. This is likely due to our limited understanding of the basic organizing principles of these maps. Further challenges are posed because the maps in parietal and especially frontal cortex have less reliable stimulus-evoked BOLD signals compared to those in visual cortex, are more coarsely organized, and show less consistent topography across subjects. In some cases, it is uncertain as to whether a region merely has a contralateral bias as opposed to containing an actual topographic map (Hagler and Sereno, 2006; Kastner et al., 2007; Silver and Kastner, 2009; Jerde et al., 2012; Patel et al., 2014). Here, we take a step back from trying to understand the functions and instead systematically characterize the basic organizing principles of these putative visual field maps in frontoparietal cortex.

Establishing the organization of maps in parietal and frontal cortex will have several major impacts. First, the identification and better characterization of which maps are human homologs of macaque areas will facilitate better translation of non-human primate models of human cognition to humans. Second, understanding the topography of parietal and frontal maps will enable researchers to aggregate results at the level of individual maps or even small areas within maps, rather than at the level of large regions of cortex, similar to the successes in delineating maps in occipital cortex in animals (Essen and Zeki, 1978; Desimone and Ungerleider, 1986; Gattass et al., 2005) and humans (Sereno et al., 2001; Engel et al., 1997). Indeed, the fundamental reason the visual neurosciences have outpaced the cognitive neurosciences is the ability to reliably define and to study the function of the same areas across individuals and across labs. Such convention facilitates comparisons between studies of different computations and representations across different subject populations and methods of measurement. This effectively creates a worldwide, across-time, collaboration between all labs. As such, the organization of visual field maps in early visual cortex has been well characterized, to the point of enabling the development of detailed templates of the visual field for V1–V3 (Dougherty et al., 2003; Benson et al., 2012, 2014). By contrast, much less is known about the organization of visual field maps in frontoparietal cortex, and thus presents a critical roadblock for understanding their functions.

To these ends, we focus on characterizing the organization and retinotopic properties of putative visual field maps in frontoparietal cortex. We estimated population receptive field (pRF) parameters in topographic areas in early visual, parietal, and frontal cortices. The pRF method not only estimates a voxel’s polar angle and eccentricity preference, but also its receptive field (RF) size, and has been shown to map topography more accurately than conventional traveling wave methods (Dumoulin and Wandell, 2008). However, two important challenges exist when attempting to identify visual field maps in frontoparietal cortex. First, passive viewing of high-contrast spatial patterns elicits weak and non-systematic responses in frontoparietal cortex (Silver et al., 2005; Saygin and Sereno, 2008). Therefore, identifying visual field maps in higher order frontoparietal cortex requires more cognitively demanding stimulation that taxes attention or memory (Silver et al., 2005; Jerde et al., 2012). Second, the large RF sizes expected in frontoparietal cortex make it difficult for linear RF models to accurately characterize response properties to stimuli that vary in size. To overcome these challenges, we developed a novel, attention-demanding task specifically designed to elicit robust, systematic responses in frontoparietal cortex (Figure 1A). Moreover, we estimated pRFs with a model that accounts for nonlinear responses to stimuli of varying size (Kay et al., 2013; Winawer et al., 2013). Nonlinear spatial summation is more pronounced in extrastriate maps than in V1 and is likely to be even more so in frontoparietal cortices.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

During a single functional neuroimaging session, observers swept their focus of attention across the visual field, while maintaining central fixation, in order to perform a difficult motion discrimination task. The task was designed to tax attentional resources that are presumably controlled by activity in topographic maps in frontoparietal cortex (Figure 1A, Video 1). A bar aperture swept across the visual field in discrete steps, vertically or horizontally traveling in four possible directions: left to right, right to left, top to bottom, bottom to top. The bar was comprised of three rectangular patches, each of which contained a random dot kinematogram (RDK) moving in a particular direction. The central patch contained 100% coherent motion and the two flanking patches contained low coherence motion. Observers pressed a button to indicate which of the two flanking patches (above or below for vertical bars, left or right for horizontal bars) matched the RDK direction of the middle patch. The motion coherence of the flanking patches was staircased to ensure the task remained difficult throughout the duration of the scanning session (75% accuracy).

Video 1

Download asset

We used a nonlinear pRF model to predict the BOLD response of each individual voxel to the visual stimulus (Figure 1B). Each model is specified by the center (x,y) and size (σ, or standard deviation of an isotropic 2D Gaussian) of the pRF, and uses a power-law exponent (n) to account for sub-additive spatial summation (Equations 1 and 2). The non-linearity interacts with the Gaussian standard deviation to make an effective pRF size of ${\displaystyle \sigma /\sqrt{n}}$ (Kay et al., 2013; Winawer et al., 2013). We excluded voxels from further analysis if less than 10% of the variance in the time series was explained by the pRF model (Equation 3). We also excluded voxels with pRF centers outside of the limits of our visual display (12 degrees of visual angle). The pRF fitting strategy proposed by Dumoulin and Wandell (2008) was a coarse-to-fine approach, in which the initial coarse fit was solved on time series that were spatially blurred (approximating a Gaussian kernel of 5 mm width at half height) and temporally decimated (2x), and that used gridded parameters rather than searching for the best fit using nonlinear search optimization algorithms; the second stage then used the solution of the grid fit as a seed for a search, and applied this search to the unblurred (in space and time) time series. Here, we used only the first stage (the grid fit), applied to the smoothed and temporally decimated time series. The grid fit is more robust to noise (although also less accurate when noise is low). Our primary goal was to map frontoparietal cortex, where pRFs were expected to be larger, and hence the stimulus relevant signals were expected to be dominated by lower temporal frequencies compared to those of early visual cortex, where pRFs are much smaller. The temporal decimation in the grid fit reduces sensitivity to high temporal frequency noise. Furthermore, in frontoparietal cortex, stimulus-related signals were expected to be less reliable than those in the visual cortex; as a result, the spatial blurring in the grid fit was beneficial. Subsequently, we performed the second stage (search fit) to ensure that our results were not an artifact of artificial structure imposed by the grid fit due to interpolating voxels. We found no discernible differences between the grid and search fits (See Model reliability and comparisons below). The grid included the same set of possible values in the solution as those described by Dumoulin and Wandell (2008), with the addition of the power law exponent, which was gridded to be 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1. A value of 1 indicates a linear fit; values smaller than 1 indicate increasingly more sub-additive spatial summation.

We identified retinotopic maps in early dorsal visual areas (V1, V2, V3, V3A&B) as well as at least four maps along the intraparietal sulcus (IPS0, IPS1, IPS2, IPS3) and two regions with spatial tuning along the precentral sulcus in frontal cortex in each hemisphere of all subjects. The superior portion of the precentral sulcus region contained two distinct visual field maps that we refer to as sPCS1 and sPCS2. Example model fits for voxels in different visual field maps are shown in Figure 1C. Although we were able to observe additional parietal maps in some subjects, we restricted further analysis to maps consistently observed in both hemispheres of every subject. All areas are described in further detail below.

Visual cortex

As an important control, our methods revealed the functional organization and pRF properties typically observed in early visual cortex. Polar angle and eccentricity representations revealed the expected patterns in V1, V2d, V3d, and V3A&B (Figure 2A and B; Figure 2—figure supplement 1). The progression of these areas begins medially from the occipital pole in the calcarine sulcus with V1, and extends dorsally and laterally along the surface of the cortex. V1 contains a continuous angular representation of the contralateral hemifield, beginning at the upper vertical meridian (UVM) on the lower bank of the calcarine sulcus, and progressing to the lower vertical meridian (LVM) along the inferior-to-superior direction. V2 sits adjacent to the LVM border of V1, and begins a reversal of polar angles representing half of the contralateral hemifield and progressing to the horizontal meridian (HM). V3 sits adjacent to the HM border of V2, beginning another angle reversal back towards the LVM, and also represents half of the contralateral hemifield. Finally, V3A begins along the border of V3 in the periphery (but not fovea), and contains a full and continuous angular representation of the contralateral hemifield from the LVM to the UVM. V3B is adjacent to V3A, divided by a shared foveal representation, as reported previously (Press et al., 2001; Wandell et al., 2005).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Together, these maps form two distinct visual field map clusters. A cluster is comprised of a group of angle representations that all share a confluent fovea (Wandell et al., 2005; Kolster et al., 2009). Within a cluster, the boundaries of adjacent angle representations can be defined by reversals in polar angle progression or eccentricity. For example, the boundary between V1 and V2 is identified by a polar angle reversal at the LVM, as described above. V1, V2, and V3 share a common foveal representation centered near the occipital pole that extends towards the collateral sulcus. V3A and V3B comprise a second cluster because they share another foveal representation, anterior to and distinct from the foveal representation shared by V1, V2, and V3. They are divided by an eccentricity reversal rather than by a polar angle reversal.

Moving up the hierarchy of early visual cortex, from V1 to V3A&B, pRF parameters begin to differ systematically. For example, pRF sizes at a given eccentricity generally increased across visual field maps, and within each visual field map in visual cortex, pRF size increased monotonically with eccentricity (Figure 2C). Consistent with previous studies investigating spatial summation in pRFs (Kay et al., 2013), we found that in extrastriate maps, the pRF models show more sub-additive spatial summation, indicated by a smaller power law exponent. The fraction of voxels with the minimal pRF exponent allowed by our grid search (0.25) was least in V1 (33%), and substantially higher in extrastriate areas (68% in V2; 80% in V3; 77% in V3A&B).

Parietal cortex

We found clear patterns of systematic organization in eccentricity and polar angle representation in the intraparietal sulcus (Figure 3; Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Beginning with IPS0 and progressing through IPS3, each map contains a full representation of the contralateral hemifield, while the polar angle reversals demarcate the boundaries of each individual map. Additionally, each successive map lies anterior to the visual field map before it. Starting with the most posterior map, IPS0 lies at the intersection of the parietal-occipital sulcus and the intraparietal sulcus, adjacent to the UVM representation of V3A&B. The angular representation systematically progresses from the UVM to the LVM, where another angle reversal takes place, creating the posterior border of IPS1. The angular gradient of IPS1 sweeps from the LVM back towards the UVM, where it borders IPS2. IPS2 then contains an angular progression from the UVM to the LVM, where it borders IPS3. IPS3 then contains an angular progression from the LVM to the UVM.

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Using these novel methods, we discovered that maps along the IPS are organized into two clusters of visual maps. IPS0 and IPS1 share a confluent fovea, while IPS2 and IPS3 share another distinct foveal representation (Figure 3). Notably, we find that the direction of the eccentricity gradient shared by IPS0 and IPS1, as well as that shared by IPS2 and IPS3 is the same. In both clusters, there is a mediolateral representation of eccentricity, where the foveal region is found near the fundus of the intraparietal sulcus, and then parafoveal-to-peripheral representations progress medially towards the medial wall (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). However, unlike maps in early visual cortex, parietal visual field maps did not allow us to measure pRF sizes with sufficient accuracy. Estimates of pRF size for nearly all voxels in parietal visual field maps were ~12 degrees, even for voxels with pRF centers at the fovea. As 12 degrees is both the maximum stimulus extent in our experiment and the upper boundary of our grid fit, it is likely that these pRF size estimates are a floor on the true size, rather than an accurate measure of the pRF size of voxels in this region. However, these measurements do indicate that the sizes of pRFs in parietal cortex are large, and probably larger than 12 degrees.

Maps in parietal cortex, like extrastriate maps in visual areas, showed a systematic sub-additivity in spatial summation. The vast majority of voxels were best fit by a pRF model with the minimal pRF exponent allowed by our grid (IPS0: 73%; IPS1: 75%; IPS2: 81%; IPS3: 89%). These results are comparable to the low exponent found in measurements of ventral occipitotemporal face-selective regions (0.20, 0.16, 0.23 in three face-selective ROIs) (Kay et al., 2015).

Frontal cortex

We also discovered that visual field maps in frontal cortex are organized by polar angle as well as by eccentricity. Although polar angle representations have been described before (Kastner et al., 2007; Saygin and Sereno, 2008; Jerde et al., 2012), representations of eccentricity have remained undiscovered until now. Two regions of frontal cortex along the PCS exhibited spatial tuning: one in the superior portion (sPCS) and another in the inferior portion (iPCS). Each region contains a gradient of eccentricity with a central foveal representation that radiates towards the periphery. In the sPCS, the fovea is represented in the fundus of PCS where it intersects the superior frontal sulcus. This organization was consistent across both hemispheres in all subjects (Figure 4). The discovery of the foveal representation in a location common across subjects allowed us to separate the region into two visual field maps, identifiable in each subject. We refer to these new maps as sPCS1 and sPCS2, consistent with naming visual field maps according to their anatomical location (Larsson and Heeger, 2006; Arcaro et al., 2009). Both sPCS1 and sPCS2 contain a full and continuous representation of the contralateral hemifield (Figure 5; Figure 5—figure supplement 1). The superior border of sPCS1 begins at the LVM and continues to the UVM, where an angle reversal occurs, signaling the border of sPCS2. sPCS2 then contains an angular progression from the UVM back to the LVM. The inferior portion of the PCS (iPCS) also contained spatial representations and was distinct from the sPCS cluster (Figure 5; Figure 5—figure supplement 2). The foveal representation in the iPCS is located at the junction of the PCS and the inferior frontal sulcus. Although the topography in the iPCS region was not sufficiently regular across subjects to propose a generalized map schema, the eccentricity representation was regular in that peripheral representations typically surrounded a foveal representation. Further, while the map organization was less clear than the sPCS maps, both in terms of consistency across subjects and structure within a subject, the visual field coverage nonetheless showed a systematic representation of the contralateral visual field, similar to sPCS1 and sPCS2, which we return to in the next section (Visual field coverage density and laterality). Moreover, the iPCS maps were as accurate as the sPCS maps in terms of cross-validated prediction error and were also as lateralized, as we describe below (Model reliability and comparison, Visual field coverage laterality and density). These results indicate that the iPCS map, like the sPCS maps, contains a clear representation of spatial information.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

As was the case in parietal cortex, in frontal cortex, estimates of pRF size were large and pRF exponents small for nearly all voxels. Size estimates were limited by the field of view of our display and the analysis method. Most pRFs in frontal cortex had a size estimate at the upper bound of our analysis (12 deg) and an exponent at the lower bound (0.25; iPCS: 78%; sPCS1: 82%; sPCS2: 75%). As discussed in the next two sections, the large pRF size does not indicate a failure to estimate spatial tuning, as indicated by the cross-validated model fits and the laterality indices. Nonetheless, future studies with larger displays are probably needed to estimate pRF size in these regions accurately.

Visual field coverage laterality and density

A pRF model summarizes the sensitivity of a single cortical site (for example, a voxel) to positions in the visual field. By combining the pRFs across sites within a region of interest, one can visualize the field of view of the region of interest, also called the visual field coverage (Amano et al., 2009; Winawer et al., 2010; Wandell and Winawer, 2015). The visual field coverage is typically computed as the envelope of the pRFs within an ROI. Here, we took the mean of the pRFs rather than the envelope, thereby scaling the visual field coverage by the density of pRFs at any particular location in the visual field (cortical magnification), which we refer to as the coverage density. In the V1-V3 maps, the coverage density plots show a nearly total contralateral bias, as well as bias toward the fovea over the periphery (Figure 6A). As we only estimated pRF models in the dorsal visual maps of V2 and V3, coverage was limited to the lower quadrant of the contralateral visual field as expected. The contralateral and foveal biases in early visual cortex reflect three aspects of the pRF models: (1) the centers are in the contralateral visual field, (2) the pRF sizes are relatively small, and (3) the largest number of pRF centers are close to the fovea. In V3A&B, the coverage density is wider and extends slightly into the ipsilateral visual field, as the result of larger pRF sizes. This observation was used previously to distinguish area MST from area MT in the human visual system (Huk et al., 2002; Amano et al., 2009). In parietal cortex (IPS0-IPS3) and frontal cortex (iPCS and sPCS1&2), the coverage is also centered in the contralateral hemifield, but increasingly extends into the ipsilateral field, again reflecting the larger pRF sizes. Similar to visual cortex, the coverage density is highest near the fovea, indicating a qualitative similarity in cortical magnification between frontoparietal cortex and visual cortex. The visual field coverage is evident at the individual level as well as the group level, and is supported by viewing the pRF centers as well as the coverage density (Figure 6B).

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

We quantified the degree to which visual areas have lateralized pRFs using a laterality index (Equation 4). In agreement with the coverage density plots, the laterality index shows that early visual cortex is highly lateralized, whereas successive maps from parietal to frontal cortex become less and less lateralized (Figure 6C). Additionally, there is larger subject-to-subject variability in the lateralization index in parietal and frontal areas compared to visual cortex. In summary, although maps in frontal and parietal cortex have very large pRFs compared to those in visual cortex, the spatial tuning is sufficiently reliable to show clear lateralization, complete hemifield visual coverage, and maps that are organized in an orderly topographic manner.

Model reliability and comparison

Reliably mapping topography in frontal and parietal cortex depends on nonlinear models of pRFs. We compared performance of the nonlinear pRF model to two other models: a linear pRF model (Dumoulin and Wandell, 2008) and a simple contralateralized response model. Comparisons with the linear model allowed us to see how much, if any, improvement in accuracy was gained by allowing for sub-additive spatial summation. Comparing with the lateralized response model allowed us to investigate whether our results indicate systematically organized maps as opposed to noisy representations of lateralized responses, with no spatial tuning other than a preference for the contralateral hemifield. The lateralized model predicted a uniform response amplitude whenever any portion of the stimulus was in the contralateral visual field, and zero response otherwise.

In order to compare model performance, we used a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure, which provides no advantage to models with additional parameters. The models were solved using two of the three stimulus types as training data (narrow, intermediate, or wide bars), and the remaining stimulus type as test data, iterated by leaving out each of the three stimulus types. We defined accuracy as the variance explained for the left-out data, averaged across the three cross-validation iterations. The ordinal ranking of the three models was the same in all 11 areas tested: the nonlinear model explained the greatest amount of variance, followed by the linear model, and then the lateralized response model (Figure 6D). The quantitative advantage of the nonlinear model over the linear model was smallest in V1, and larger in other maps. The improvement in performance from the nonlinear over the linear model demonstrates the benefits of including a parameter to estimate sub-additive spatial summation. This is particularly true for maps in frontal and parietal cortex, where pRFs are large and response nonlinearity estimations were at our measurement boundary. The contralateral model was much worse than either of the Gaussian models (linear or nonlinear) in visual cortex, a result of the relatively small pRFs in those areas, yet even in parietal and frontal areas, where pRFs were much larger, the contralateral model was worse than the non-linear pRF model in every area tested. This result strengthens the claim that the observed responses are spatially tuned, and not merely due to a non-specific preference for contralateral stimuli.

In order to investigate the reliability of newly discovered visual field map clusters in precentral sulcus and intraparietal sulcus, we performed a test-retest analysis on two subjects. Importantly, we found that visual field map structure (that is, polar angle and eccentricity gradients) were consistent across sessions in both subjects (Figure 7). Both the location of the fovea along the eccentricity gradient and the map borders between sPCS1 and sPCS2 were remarkably consistent across sessions. Similarly, along the intraparietal sulcus, the foveal location and angle boundaries were the same across the two sessions in both subjects. Therefore, the structure of visual field map clusters in frontoparietal cortex is stable across scanning sessions.

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Although pRF accuracy differs considerably between nonlinear and linear models, it is not dependent on using the grid or search fit. In the traditional pRF fitting procedure outlined in Dumoulin and Wandell (2008), pRF parameters are determined by a two-stage coarse-to-fine fitting procedure in which a grid fit is performed to generate a seed for the search fit. To investigate whether our use of the grid fit instead of the full two-stage process impacted our results, we compared our results to results from the two-stage fitting procedure. Using the same cross-validation procedure outlined above to compare nonlinear and linear models, we compared nonlinear model solutions between the grid fit and search fit. The two models—grid fit and search fit—solved on the training data both made predictions for the identical, left-out, unsmoothed test data. The grid fit performed numerically, but not statistically, better than the search fit in every ROI (Figure 7—figure supplement 1). Additionally, there is little to no difference in visual field map structure, polar angle gradients, or eccentricity gradients between the grid fit and search fit.

Together, these observations, coupled with our newly discovered systematic organization of frontal and parietal maps, demonstrate the existence of topographically organized visual field maps in frontoparietal cortex. Moreover, the facts that the pRF model solutions cross-validate well and are stable over time strongly indicate that the visual field maps are reliable and that our methods for measuring and modeling them are accurate.

Positioning of frontoparietal visual topographic maps in the context of other mapping schemes

Next, we wondered how the locations of these visual maps might correspond to previous anatomical designations of the lateral frontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex. To address this, we transformed and spatially aligned the maximum probability map of visual topography (PMVT; Wang et al., 2015) and the multi-modal parcellation of brain areas (MMP; Glasser et al., 2016) to each subject’s native space. We were then able to compare the overlap of each subject’s frontal and parietal topographic areas with these maps. Figure 8 depicts the results of the overlap. Our IPS0-IPS3 maps tend to overlap with maps from both of these sources. However, the correspondence between specific areas is systematic neither across hemispheres nor across subjects. For instance, IPS3 from PMVT has some overlap with subject 2’s left hemisphere IPS3, but not with any of the other subjects’ hemispheres. Similarly, ‘LIPd’ and ‘LIPv’ from the MMP show little correspondence to our retinotopically defined IPS visual maps. In the lateral frontal cortex, we see better correspondence between our sPCS2 maps and the ‘FEF’ areas designated in the PMVT and MMP maps. However, this correspondence is better in the left hemisphere than in the right for some reason, and it often includes sPCS1 and misses large portions of sPCS2. MMP areas 6a and 6d typically encompass most of our sPCS1, which mostly straddles these two areas, especially in the left hemisphere.

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

Using novel procedures, we precisely characterized the topographic organization of visual field maps in human frontoparietal cortex, including four visual field maps along the IPS and two spatially tuned regions along the PCS. Each of these maps contains a representation of the full range of polar angles in the contralateral visual field; they are topographically, not simply contralaterally, organized. By combining pRFs across voxels within visual maps, we demonstrate that these maps tile the complete contralateral hemifield in an orderly manner. As expected, the pRF sizes in frontoparietal cortex are larger than those in early visual cortex. We also demonstrate previously unreported representations of eccentricity along the precentral sulcus, and replicate previous findings of eccentricity gradients along all IPS (Swisher et al., 2007). Furthermore, we show that a spatially tuned region of the superior precentral sulcus is organized into at least two distinct visual field maps (referred to here as sPCS1 and sPCS2), each representing the entire contralateral visual field in an orderly manner. Interestingly, the visual maps in both parietal and frontal cortex are organized into clusters of polar angle maps sharing the dimension of eccentricity, similar to visual cortex (Wandell et al., 2005). Two maps in frontal cortex and two pairs of maps in parietal cortex form clusters of polar angle gradients that share a foveal to peripheral representation. Together, these data clearly describe the topographic structure of the visual maps in human frontoparietal cortices.

Following standard practices of reproducible research, the data (Mackey et al., 2017) and software (Winawer et al., 2017) are publicly available.

1. 1. Amano K
   2. Wandell BA
   3. Dumoulin SO

   (2009) Visual field maps, population receptive field sizes, and visual field coverage in the human MT+ complex

   Journal of Neurophysiology 102:2704–2718.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00102.2009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arcaro MJ
   2. Kastner S

   (2015) Topographic organization of areas V3 and V4 and its relation to supra-areal organization of the primate visual system

   Visual Neuroscience 32:E014.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523815000115

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Arcaro MJ
   2. McMains SA
   3. Singer BD
   4. Kastner S

   (2009) Retinotopic organization of human ventral visual cortex

   Journal of Neuroscience 29:10638–10652.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2807-09.2009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arcaro MJ
   2. Pinsk MA
   3. Kastner S

   (2015) The anatomical and functional Organization of the human Visual Pulvinar

   Journal of Neuroscience 35:9848–9871.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1575-14.2015

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Arcaro MJ
   2. Pinsk MA
   3. Li X
   4. Kastner S

   (2011) Visuotopic organization of macaque posterior parietal cortex: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

   Journal of Neuroscience 31:2064–2078.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3334-10.2011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Barlow HB

   (1986) Why have multiple cortical areas?

   Vision Research 26:81–90.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(86)90072-6

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bartels A
   2. Zeki S

   (2000) The architecture of the colour centre in the human visual brain: new results and a review

   European Journal of Neuroscience 12:172–193.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00905.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Barton B
   2. Brewer AA

   (2017) Visual field map clusters in High-Order Visual Processing: organization of V3A/V3B and a New Cloverleaf Cluster in the Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus

   Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 11:4.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2017.00004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bechara A
   2. Damasio AR
   3. Damasio H
   4. Anderson SW

   (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex

   Cognition 50:7–15.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Ben Hamed S
    2. Duhamel JR
    3. Bremmer F
    4. Graf W

    (2001) Representation of the visual field in the lateral intraparietal area of macaque monkeys: a quantitative receptive field analysis

    Experimental Brain Research 140:127–144.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210100785

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Benson NC
    2. Butt OH
    3. Brainard DH
    4. Aguirre GK

    (2014) Correction of distortion in flattened representations of the cortical surface allows prediction of V1-V3 functional organization from anatomy

    PLoS Computational Biology 10:e1003538.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003538

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Benson NC
    2. Butt OH
    3. Datta R
    4. Radoeva PD
    5. Brainard DH
    6. Aguirre GK

    (2012) The retinotopic organization of striate cortex is well predicted by surface topology

    Current Biology 22:2081–2085.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Blair Hedges S
    2. Kumar S

    (2003) Genomic clocks and evolutionary timescales

    Trends in Genetics 19:200–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(03)00053-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Blanke O
    2. Morand S
    3. Thut G
    4. Michel CM
    5. Spinelli L
    6. Landis T
    7. Seeck M

    (1999) Visual activity in the human frontal eye field

    NeuroReport 10:925–930.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199904060-00006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Blatt GJ
    2. Andersen RA
    3. Stoner GR

    (1990) Visual receptive field organization and cortico-cortical connections of the lateral intraparietal area (area LIP) in the macaque

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 299:421–445.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902990404

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Bourne JA
    2. Rosa MG

    (2006) Hierarchical development of the primate visual cortex, as revealed by neurofilament immunoreactivity: early maturation of the middle temporal area (MT)

    Cerebral Cortex 16:405–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Bruce CJ
    2. Goldberg ME
    3. Bushnell MC
    4. Stanton GB

    (1985)

    Primate frontal eye fields. II. physiological and anatomical correlates of electrically evoked eye movements

    Journal of Neurophysiology 54:714–734.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Buckner RL
    2. Krienen FM

    (2013) The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:648–665.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dale AM
    2. Fischl B
    3. Sereno MI

    (1999) Cortical surface-based analysis. I. segmentation and surface reconstruction

    NeuroImage 9:179–194.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1998.0395

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Desimone R
    2. Ungerleider LG

    (1986) Multiple visual areas in the caudal superior temporal sulcus of the macaque

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 248:164–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902480203

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dougherty RF
    2. Koch VM
    3. Brewer AA
    4. Fischer B
    5. Modersitzki J
    6. Wandell BA

    (2003) Visual field representations and locations of visual areas V1/2/3 in human visual cortex

    Journal of Vision 3:1–598.

    https://doi.org/10.1167/3.10.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dumoulin SO
    2. Wandell BA

    (2008) Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex

    NeuroImage 39:647–660.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Engel SA
    2. Glover GH
    3. Wandell BA

    (1997) Retinotopic organization in human visual cortex and the spatial precision of functional MRI

    Cerebral Cortex 7:181–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/7.2.181

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gattass R
    2. Nascimento-Silva S
    3. Soares JG
    4. Lima B
    5. Jansen AK
    6. Diogo AC
    7. Farias MF
    8. Botelho MM
    9. Mariani OS
    10. Azzi J
    11. Fiorani M

    (2005) Cortical visual areas in monkeys: location, topography, connections, columns, plasticity and cortical dynamics

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:709–731.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1629

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Coalson TS
    3. Robinson EC
    4. Hacker CD
    5. Harwell J
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Andersson J
    9. Beckmann CF
    10. Jenkinson M
    11. Smith SM
    12. Van Essen DC

    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex

    Nature 536:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18933

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hagler DJ
    2. Sereno MI

    (2006) Spatial maps in frontal and prefrontal cortex

    NeuroImage 29:567–577.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Holmes G

    (1918) Disturbances of vision by cerebral lesions

    British Journal of Ophthalmology 2:353–384.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2.7.353

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Huk AC
    2. Dougherty RF
    3. Heeger DJ

    (2002)

    Retinotopy and functional subdivision of human areas MT and MST

    Journal of Neuroscience 22:7195–7205.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. Book

    1. Inouye T

    (1909)

    Die Sehstörungen Bei Schussverletzungen Der Kortikalen Sehsphäre: Nach Beobachtungen an Verwundeten Der Letzten Japanischen Kriege

    Leipzig: Engelmann.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Jerde TA
    2. Merriam EP
    3. Riggall AC
    4. Hedges JH
    5. Curtis CE

    (2012) Prioritized maps of space in human frontoparietal cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 32:17382–17390.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3810-12.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kaas JH

    (1997) Topographic maps are fundamental to sensory processing

    Brain Research Bulletin 44:107–112.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-9230(97)00094-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kastner S
    2. DeSimone K
    3. Konen CS
    4. Szczepanski SM
    5. Weiner KS
    6. Schneider KA

    (2007) Topographic maps in human frontal cortex revealed in memory-guided saccade and spatial working-memory tasks

    Journal of Neurophysiology 97:3494–3507.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00010.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kay KN
    2. Weiner KS
    3. Grill-Spector K

    (2015) Attention reduces spatial uncertainty in human ventral temporal cortex

    Current Biology 25:595–600.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kay KN
    2. Winawer J
    3. Mezer A
    4. Wandell BA

    (2013) Compressive spatial summation in human visual cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 110:481–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00105.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. Software

    1. Kay KN

    (2017) Alignvolumedata, version 327bdc5

    Github.

    https://github.com/kendrickkay/alignvolumedata
36. 1. Kolster H
    2. Mandeville JB
    3. Arsenault JT
    4. Ekstrom LB
    5. Wald LL
    6. Vanduffel W

    (2009) Visual field map clusters in macaque extrastriate visual cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 29:7031–7039.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0518-09.2009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Larsson J
    2. Heeger DJ

    (2006) Two retinotopic visual areas in human lateral occipital cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 26:13128–13142.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1657-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Website

    1. Mackey W
    2. Winawer J
    3. Curtis CE

    (2017) Visual Field Map Clusters in Human Frontoparietal Cortex Data Supplement

    Open Science Framework. Accessed April 2017.

    https://osf.io/zm9bm/
39. 1. Mackey WE
    2. Devinsky O
    3. Doyle WK
    4. Golfinos JG
    5. Curtis CE

    (2016a) Human parietal cortex lesions impact the precision of spatial working memory

    Journal of Neurophysiology 116:02016.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00380.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Mackey WE
    2. Devinsky O
    3. Doyle WK
    4. Meager MR
    5. Curtis CE

    (2016b) Human Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex is not necessary for spatial working memory

    Journal of Neuroscience 36:2847–2856.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3618-15.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Manes F
    2. Sahakian B
    3. Clark L
    4. Rogers R
    5. Antoun N
    6. Aitken M
    7. Robbins T

    (2002) Decision-making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex

    Brain 125:624–639.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Michalka SW
    2. Kong L
    3. Rosen ML
    4. Shinn-Cunningham BG
    5. Somers DC

    (2015) Short-Term memory for space and Time Flexibly Recruit complementary Sensory-Biased frontal lobe attention Networks

    Neuron 87:882–892.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.07.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Mountcastle VB

    (1957)

    Modality and topographic properties of single neurons of cat's somatic sensory cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 20:408–434.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Orban GA
    2. Van Essen D
    3. Vanduffel W

    (2004) Comparative mapping of higher visual areas in monkeys and humans

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:315–324.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Passingham R

    (2009) How good is the macaque monkey model of the human brain?

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 19:6–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Patel GH
    2. Kaplan DM
    3. Snyder LH

    (2014) Topographic organization in the brain: searching for general principles

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18:351–363.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Patel GH
    2. Shulman GL
    3. Baker JT
    4. Akbudak E
    5. Snyder AZ
    6. Snyder LH
    7. Corbetta M

    (2010) Topographic organization of macaque area LIP

    PNAS 107:4728–4733.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908092107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Posner MI
    2. Walker JA
    3. Friedrich FJ
    4. Rafal RD

    (1984)

    Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention

    Journal of Neuroscience 4:1863–1874.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Power JD
    2. Barnes KA
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Schlaggar BL
    5. Petersen SE

    (2012) Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion

    NeuroImage 59:2142–2154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Press WA
    2. Brewer AA
    3. Dougherty RF
    4. Wade AR
    5. Wandell BA

    (2001) Visual areas and spatial summation in human visual cortex

    Vision Research 41:1321–1332.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00074-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Rilling JK

    (2006) Human and nonhuman primate brains: Are they allometrically scaled versions of the same design?

    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 15:65–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20095

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Robinson DA
    2. Fuchs AF

    (1969)

    Eye movements evoked by stimulation of frontal eye fields

    Journal of Neurophysiology 32:637–648.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Rosa MG
    2. Tweedale R

    (2005) Brain maps, great and small: lessons from comparative studies of primate visual cortical organization

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:665–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1626

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Rosa MG

    (2002) Visual maps in the adult primate cerebral cortex: some implications for brain development and evolution

    Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 35:1485–1498.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2002001200008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Savaki HE
    2. Gregoriou GG
    3. Bakola S
    4. Moschovakis AK

    (2015) Topography of Visuomotor Parameters in the frontal and Premotor Eye Fields

    Cerebral Cortex 25:3095–3106.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Savaki HE
    2. Gregoriou GG
    3. Bakola S
    4. Raos V
    5. Moschovakis AK

    (2010) The place code of saccade metrics in the lateral bank of the intraparietal sulcus

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:1118–1127.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2268-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Saygin AP
    2. Sereno MI

    (2008) Retinotopy and attention in human occipital, temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 18:2158–2168.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm242

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. Book

    1. Schall J
    2. Zinke W
    3. Cosman J
    4. Schall M
    5. Paré M
    6. Pouget P

    (2017) On the Evolution of the Frontal Eye Field: Comparisons of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

    In: Kass J, editors. Evolution of Nervous Systems. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 249–275.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804042-3.00130-5

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Schluppeck D
    2. Glimcher P
    3. Heeger DJ

    (2005) Topographic organization for delayed saccades in human posterior parietal cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 94:1372–1384.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01290.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sereno MI
    2. Pitzalis S
    3. Martinez A

    (2001) Mapping of contralateral space in retinotopic coordinates by a parietal cortical area in humans

    Science 294:1350–1354.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063695

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Sheremata SL
    2. Silver MA

    (2015) Hemisphere-dependent attentional modulation of human parietal visual field representations

    Journal of Neuroscience 35:508–517.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2378-14.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Silver MA
    2. Kastner S

    (2009) Topographic maps in human frontal and parietal cortex

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13:488–495.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Silver MA
    2. Ress D
    3. Heeger DJ

    (2005) Topographic maps of visual spatial attention in human parietal cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 94:1358–1371.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01316.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Swisher JD
    2. Halko MA
    3. Merabet LB
    4. McMains SA
    5. Somers DC

    (2007) Visual topography of human intraparietal sulcus

    Journal of Neuroscience 27:5326–5337.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0991-07.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Tootell RB
    2. Mendola JD
    3. Hadjikhani NK
    4. Ledden PJ
    5. Liu AK
    6. Reppas JB
    7. Sereno MI
    8. Dale AM

    (1997)

    Functional analysis of V3A and related areas in human visual cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 17:7060–7078.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Essen DC
    2. Zeki SM

    (1978) The topographic organization of rhesus monkey prestriate cortex

    The Journal of Physiology 277:193–226.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012269

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Wandell BA
    2. Brewer AA
    3. Dougherty RF

    (2005) Visual field map clusters in human cortex

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:693–707.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1628

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Wandell BA
    2. Dumoulin SO
    3. Brewer AA

    (2007) Visual field maps in human cortex

    Neuron 56:366–383.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Wandell BA
    2. Winawer J

    (2011) Imaging retinotopic maps in the human brain

    Vision Research 51:718–737.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wandell BA
    2. Winawer J

    (2015) Computational neuroimaging and population receptive fields

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19:349–357.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Wang L
    2. Mruczek RE
    3. Arcaro MJ
    4. Kastner S

    (2015) Probabilistic Maps of Visual Topography in human cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 25:3911–3931.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wig GS
    2. Laumann TO
    3. Cohen AL
    4. Power JD
    5. Nelson SM
    6. Glasser MF
    7. Miezin FM
    8. Snyder AZ
    9. Schlaggar BL
    10. Petersen SE

    (2014) Parcellating an individual subject's cortical and subcortical brain structures using snowball sampling of resting-state correlations

    Cerebral Cortex 24:2036–2054.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Wilkins AJ
    2. Shallice T
    3. McCarthy R

    (1987) Frontal lesions and sustained attention

    Neuropsychologia 25:359–365.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(87)90024-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Winawer J
    2. Horiguchi H
    3. Sayres RA
    4. Amano K
    5. Wandell BA

    (2010) Mapping hV4 and ventral occipital cortex: the venous eclipse

    Journal of Vision 10:1.

    https://doi.org/10.1167/10.5.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Winawer J
    2. Kay KN
    3. Foster BL
    4. Rauschecker AM
    5. Parvizi J
    6. Wandell BA

    (2013) Asynchronous broadband signals are the principal source of the BOLD response in human visual cortex

    Current Biology 23:1145–1153.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. Software

    1. Winawer J
    2. Wandell BA
    3. Dougherty RF

    (2017) GitHub, version vistasoft

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/vistalab/vistasoft. 007284b
77. 1. Yeo BT
    2. Krienen FM
    3. Chee MW
    4. Buckner RL

    (2014) Estimates of segregation and overlap of functional connectivity networks in the human cerebral cortex

    NeuroImage 88:212–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Yeo BT
    2. Krienen FM
    3. Sepulcre J
    4. Sabuncu MR
    5. Lashkari D
    6. Hollinshead M
    7. Roffman JL
    8. Smoller JW
    9. Zöllei L
    10. Polimeni JR
    11. Fischl B
    12. Liu H
    13. Buckner RL

    (2011) The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity

    Journal of Neurophysiology 106:1125–1165.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Wayne E Mackey

   Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   WEM, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1577-9235

2. Jonathan Winawer

   1. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   JW, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7475-5586

3. Clayton E Curtis

   1. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States

   Contribution

   CEC, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   clayton.curtis@nyu.edu

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0702-1499

• 4,157

  views

• 573

  downloads

• 101

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.