Figure 11.
Comparison between the spatial arrangement of OI response maps and that of the superficial patch system in monkey V1. Sets of active regions from OI response maps from monkey V1 were resampled, using the convex hull of a group of patches as a mask (for details, see Materials and Methods). The spatial arrangement of these resampled response maps was then analyzed using the same characteristic measures as above. In all graphs, the distributions measured from our patch-labeling injection database are shown as solid curves with dark shading. The resampled OI response maps are represented by dashed curves and lighter shading. (a) The distributions of angles on the OI response maps are indistinguishable from that measured from the patch groups (PK–S = 0.39; n = 108 resampled OI response maps, n = 27 injections). (b) The mean spacing measured between neighboring active regions on the OI response maps (dashed curves) is clearly different from that measured between neighboring patches (solid curve—0.74 mm vs. 0.50 mm, respectively). (c) The same data as shown in b but with the distributions of interpatch distance separated by lab (solid curves). The black points in c comprise a scatter plot for measured interpatch distances for each grouped set of injections, one row per source laboratory. These are included to illustrate the large variance in tissue shrinkage observed between different labs, assuming that all labs are sampling from the same patch system statistics. The dashed curve indicates the distribution of separations between active regions measured from resampled OI response maps, as in b, shown for comparison.