Table 1.

The Precision of Physical and Perceived Position Coding in Each higher level ROI

	Physical Position Discrimination (–Z)	Perceived Position Discrimination (–Z)	Z Test (Percept > Physical)	p
LO	.231	.487	–2.90	.0038*
pFs	.229	.426	–2.23	.0259*
FFA	.227	.409	–2.06	.0396*
PPA	.217	.424	–2.34	.0195*
MT +	.241	.428	–2.12	.0339*

The precision estimates were computed by fitting a linear regression to the position discrimination plot (grouped data) of each ROI. An r value significantly different from zero indicates significant position selectivity within the ROI, and a more negative r implies more precise position coding (Fischer & Whitney, 2009b). We applied a Fisher z-transform to each precision estimate (r value) for the sake of linear comparison, and we present the precision estimates in negative z units so that larger values indicate more precise position selectivity. We performed a within-area comparison of perceived and physical position coding for each ROI using a Z test (see Methods). Encoding of perceived position was more precise than that of physical position in every higher level area we tested. We corrected for multiple comparisons by controlling the false discovery rate to 0.05 (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

^*Significant with FDR correction for multiple comparisons at q = 0.05.