Current and future goals are represented in opposite patterns in object-selective cortex
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Figures
Figure 1
Trial design.
(A) Experiment 1. On each trial, participants performed two consecutive visual search tasks. The target objects for both search tasks were presented at the start of the trial. One of the objects …
Figure 2 with 2 supplements
Within-relevance and Cross-relevance object category decoding in pFs.
(A) Time course of the Within-relevance decoding where the classifier was trained and tested either within the current, or within the prospective conditions and (B) Average decoding accuracy within …
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Decoding performance for each participant of Experiment 1: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 2.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.008
-
Figure 2—source data 2
Mean BOLD response for each participant of Experiment 1: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.009
-
Figure 2—source data 3
Cross-temporal generalization matrices for each participant: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 2—figure supplement 2.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.010
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Time course of the Mean BOLD response in area pFs for current and prospective trials of Experiment 1.
There was a small difference in the BOLD response magnitude during the Delay depending on whether the category was currently or prospectively relevant (t(1,23) = 2.15, p = 0.0427, = 0.44). A …
Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Cross-temporal generalization matrices for object category decoding as a function of Relevance.
(A) Within relevence classification on the Current condition, (B) Within relevence classification on the Prospective condition, and (C) Cross-relevance classification (averaged for training on …
Figure 3
Representational dissimilarity analysis of object representations in pFs.
(A) Representational dissimilarity matrices for the different variable template categories during Delay, Search 1 and Search 2, as a function of relevance (current and prospective). Blue indicates …
-
Figure 3—source data 1
RDM for each participant of Experiment 1: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 3.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.012
Figure 4 with 1 supplement
Within-relevance and cross-relevance object category decoding in pFs.
(A) Time course of within-relevance decoding and (B) Averaged decoding accuracy within the time intervals shown by the shaded areas in A. During the delay, object category decoding was higher for …
-
Figure 4—source data 1
Decoding performance for each participant of Experiment 2: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 4.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.017
-
Figure 4—source data 2
Mean BOLD response for each participant of Experiment 2: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 4—figure supplement 1.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.018
Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Time course of the Mean BOLD response in area pFs of Experiment 2.
There were no significant differences across relevance conditions during the Delay (F(2,48) = 0.80, p = 0.453, = 0.032, see Figure S1C and S1D). There was a reliable main effect of condition …
Figure 5
Representational dissimilarity analysis of object representations in pFs.
(A,D,G) Representational dissimilarity matrices and (B,E,H) Multidimensional scaling plots of the same similarity values for the different target object categories during Delay, Search 1 and Search …
-
Figure 5—source data 1
RDM for each participant of Experiment 2: includes source code and data to perform statistical analysis and produce Figure 5.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.020
Tables
Table 1
Percentage correct and Reaction Time (RT) for Current and Prospective conditions in Search 1 and Search 2 (N = 24) as a function of search order.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.003| Current | Prospective | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search 1 | Search 2 | Search 1 | Search 2 | |
| Template | Variable | Constant | Constant | Variable |
| P. Correct (%) | 82.2 (7.1) | 98.1 (2.2) | 98.0 (2.3) | 76.0 (9.9) |
| RT (ms) | 1387(20) | 772 (21) | 794 (22) | 1411 (22) |
-
Table 1—source data 1
Behavioral data for each participant of Experiment 1.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.004
Table 2
Percentage correct and RT in Search 1 and Search 2 (N = 25) as a function of condition.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.013| Current | Prospective | Irrelevant | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search 1 | Search 2 | Search 1 | Search 2 | Search 1 | |
| Template | Duplicate | Duplicate | Template | Duplicate | |
| P. Correct (%) | 86.0 (8.3) | 84.3 (6.9) | 83.9 (5.5) | 83.2 (8.4) | 83.4 (6.9) |
| RT (ms) | 1355 (96) | 1478 (114) | 1460 (90) | 1447(113) | 1469 (91) |
-
Table 2—source data 1
Behavioral data for each participant of Experiment 2.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.014
Additional files
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38677.021
