Volume 88 October 2002

Pages 1815-1829: Sabes PN, Breznen B, and Andersen RA, "Parietal representation of object-based saccades." Figures 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15 were inadvertently published with errors in the labels. The correct version of these figures is presented here, with the original legends. Also, the online version of this article now contains the corrected figures and thus departs from the print publication with respect to this correction. (See http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/88/4/1815)

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The hierarchy of general linear models (GLM). Each box represents a potential model for the firing rate of a cell in a particular experimental period, as a function of the retinotopic direction R, the object orientation O, and the object-fixed location F. Hierarchy level denotes the number of independent variables included in the model. is the model prediction, is the overall mean response of the cell, and f(·) is the "tuning curve" or additive contribution due to the subscripted variable. Lines between models denote a hierarchical relationship: the top model is a superset of the bottom.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Summary of GLM results for the OBJ-SACC task. Cell-count histograms of best-fit GLM model for each trial period.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 12. A sample cell with best model RO. This is the same cell from monkey 2 shown in Fig. 10. A: mean firing rates. See legend of Fig. 8 for details. B: predictions of model RO, which was the best fit for this cell in each of the 3 trial periods. C: retinotopic and object orientation tuning curves that comprise the best-fit model. D: retinotopic tuning curves from the MEM-SACC task.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 13. A sample cell with best model RO. Monkey 1. A: mean firing rates. See legend of Fig. 8 for details. B: predictions of model RO, which was the best fit for this cell in each of the 3 trial periods. C: retinotopic and object orientation tuning curves that comprise the best-fit model. D: retinotopic tuning curves from the MEM-SACC task.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 15. A sample cell with best model ROF. Monkey 2. A: mean firing rates. See legend of Fig. 8 for details. B: predictions of the best-fit model for each period: ROF in Cue and Saccade, Int in Delay. C: retinotopic and object orientation tuning curves that comprise the best-fit model. Note that the Int model has a free parameter for each trial condition and so it doesn't have tuning curves like the other model. To facilitate comparison with D and E, the Delay period tuning curves for the ROF model are plotted here. D: retinotopic tuning curves from the MEM-SACC task. E: object orientation tuning curves from the OBJ-FIX task.