Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Apr 27.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2012 Oct 27;0:376–384. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.037

Table 1.

Correlation between the visual field maps derived using pRF and connective field modeling.

7T / 1.63
mm3 		7T / 2.03
mm3 		7T / 2.53
mm3 		3T / 2.53
mm3
r ϑ r ϑ r ϑ r ϑ
V2 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.98
V3 0.93 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.87 0.96 0.90 0.92
hV4 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.84 0.85 0.64

The correlation coefficients compare the eccentricity (r) and polar-angle (ϑ) maps in V2-hV4 for subject S1 derived using conventional pRF modeling to those derived using the connective field method. The correlation coefficients were computed for all voxels in the regions of interest for which the best-fitting connective field models explained more than 15% of the time-series variance. Columns indicate different combinations of magnetic field-strength and the voxel size. All correlation coefficients were highly significant (p < 0.0001).